TABLE OF CONTENTS
Thursday, June 2, 1994
Bill C-35. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 4733
Bill C-36. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 4733
Bill C-37. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 4733
Bill C-254. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 4733
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 4733
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 4737
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 4739
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4740
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 4747
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 4751
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais 4756
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 4763
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 4765
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 4768
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 4768
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 4768
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 4769
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 4770
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4772
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4772
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4772
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4772
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 4772
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4775
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 4775
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 4775
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4777
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4777
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 4778
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 4778
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 4779
Consideration resumed of motion 4779
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 4779
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 4789
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 4791
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 4792
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 4796
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 4803
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 4805
4733
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, June 2, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-35, an act to
establish the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and to
make consequential amendments to other acts.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-36, an act
respecting the Split Lake Cree First Nation and the settlement of
matters arising from an agreement relating to the flooding of
land.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1005 )
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-37, an
act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-254, an act to amend the
Interpretation Act (convention on the rights of the child).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to accompany
what is essentially the introduction of a children's bill of rights.
This bill would require the Government of Canada to interpret
all legislation in harmony with the UN declaration on the rights
of the child which Canada was instrumental in engineering and
has already signed.
We will remember that the House unanimously voted in 1989
to end child poverty by the year 2000. Since that time child
poverty has increased. We will remember the UN declaration on
the rights of the child. This bill will ensure that Canada will
enforce the concept that Canadian children be free from
exploitation and abuse, that government action should be
interpreted with regard to children in the best interests of the
child, that children should have access to child care, health care
and a standard of living that at minimum meets basic needs, and
that disabled children should receive the same level of dignity
and opportunities as other children.
It is important if we are going to put words into action to
ensure that commitments Canada has made on behalf of its
children are enforced by the government. At the moment this is
sadly not the case. The position of Canadian children is getting
worse.
I hope that along with my colleagues from Yukon, from
Burnaby-Kingsway, from Kamloops and also from
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who all indicated their support for this
bill, we will see some action in this regard.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,
my constituents have asked me to submit to the House three duly
executed and signed petitions.
4734
One calls on Parliament to refrain from making changes to the
human rights code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to
include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of
discrimination.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,
the second petition calls on Parliament to uphold section 241 of
the Criminal Code which makes euthanasia illegal.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,
the third petition calls on Parliament to enact a law which will
protect the lives of all innocent human beings from conception
until natural death.
(1010 )
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, I feel it is
my duty to present all petitions from my constituents that
conform with Standing Order 36. I therefore have two petitions
to present.
The first petition makes reference to the human rights code,
which Canada does not have, and asks Parliament to maintain
the status quo regarding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and
the Canadian Human Rights Act so as to not show societal
approval for same sex relationships.
A recent court decision forced the government to read sexual
orientation into the Canadian Human Rights Act. This
misunderstanding in this petition epitomizes the debate. This is
not a question of personal values or morals. It is a question of
equal rights for all Canadians.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, the second
petition requests Parliament not to alter the Criminal Code to
allow for assisted suicide or euthanasia.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
4734
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup) moved:
That this House condemn the federal government's ineffective regional
development interventions, which create overlappings and inconsistencies,
resulting in administrative chaos that hampers regional economic growth.
He said: Mr. Speaker, opening this supply day on regional
development is for me a very important opportunity. For some
Quebecers, their sovereignist commitment comes from the
desire to maintain the French fact in Quebec, but personally, my
convictions flow mainly from the general uneasiness prevalent
in all regions of Quebec, because the inefficiencies of the
present system prevent it from responding adequately to
regional development needs.
This observation of mine was also made by numerous
Quebecers, especially during the hearings of the
Bélanger-Campeau Commission. As it travelled the various
regions of Quebec, it came to the unanimous conclusion that the
regions had to have control over their own development, and in
order to do that the existing structures had to be called into
question.
Let us review quickly the history of the federal government's
involvement in regional development. In the 1960s and 1970s,
the federal government realized that its programs were hard to
access and it decided to improve the situation. It created the
Department of Regional Industrial Expansion which was
quickly discredited due to the lack of regional participation in
project development and to the dominance of departmental
concerns. The Department of Agriculture, the Department of
Fisheries and others were still acting in an uncoordinated
manner.
This prompted the federal government to try something new:
regional development agencies. One was created for Quebec,
another one for Atlantic Canada and a third for the West.
Due to these regional agencies, federal government
interventions have been rather haphazard. Cases in point are the
Federal Office of Regional Development, the Federal Business
Development Bank, the interventions of Employment and
Immigration through the Community Futures Committees and
the Business Development Centres.
All these interventions were made in good faith, but since
they were not coordinated, they produced limited economic
development and there was absolutely no coordination among
stakeholders in various sectors, which led to major errors such
as investing in the wrong sectors.
I will give you an example of this. In my riding of
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, they poured money into a new
armoury.
4735
(1015)
I suppose that people in the Reserve are very happy to have an
armoury now, but I doubt that it was a priority for my
constituents, at a time when we were desperately in need of
money to develop Gros-Cacouna harbour.
Departments take initiatives, in their own sector, without any
regard for regional priorities.
In the past few months, since the Liberal government came
into office, the Federal Office of Regional Development has
taken a back seat to the Department of Industry. Before the
previous Conservative government, the Department of Industry
used to intervene in Quebec. But in view of its lack of efficiency,
it was decided to set up regional development agencies, which
was equivalent to performing by-pass surgery on a heart patient
to make sure that his blood kept on circulating. Now, the Liberal
government is limiting the FORD's mandate and cutting its
budget in such a way that we are back to a very centralized
approach which is totally inadequate to meet regional
development needs.
What kind of message is the government sending to the
regions when in its budget, it cuts funding to the regional
development agencies to the tune of $13 million in the
Maritimes, $70 million in Quebec, and $90 million in western
Canada over three years? In Quebec alone, this will lead to cuts
in FORD regional development assistance, in the amount of $14
million in 1994-95, $32 million in 1995-96, and $24 million in
1996-97. This is a strange way to care for the patient. They have
decided to choke him to death, as clearly indicated by these
figures. In april 1994 for example, the official unemployment
rate was 27 per cent in the region of
Gaspé-Îles-de-la-Madeleine; 17 per cent in the Lower St.
Lawrence; 15 per cent in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean; 16 per
cent in Laurentides; 12 per cent in Mauricie-Bois-Francs and
15 per cent in Lanaudière.
Those are very clear indications that the government's action
has not produced the expected results in spite of all the money
they spent on the problem. There is a flaw somewhere that
makes it fail. We have to ask why. What are the causes of such a
situation?
The first cause I can see is that jurisdiction over regional
development is not specified in the Canadian Constitution.
Therefore the federal government, because it had spending
power, seized the opportunity to increase its visibility and its
influence over the electorate; at the same time, the provincial
government thought it should act because it had jurisdiction
over land use planning and found it important to control, at least
partly, regional development. That sterile war, that futile
competition, I would even say that unhealthy competition
between governments, aside from guaranteeing visibility to
politicians, only resulted in choking the regions. Such wars
between governments can only produce negative impacts.
I would like to mention another example. In the area of
fisheries in Quebec there were jurisdictional wars between
governments, wars to determine who would take relevant
measures. We can see the results of that today; we ended up with
a complete moratorium on groundfish fishing. It is due among
other things to the lack of concerted action on the part of
governments competing with each other.
The ineffectiveness of the federal government's interventions
could be attributed also to the fact that its initiatives are
haphazard. Here are a few examples. On the one hand, it creates
community futures committees which are locally based and help
members of the community help themselves. I think it was a
very interesting initiative in itself. But on the other hand, it
closes post offices. Canada Post Corporation, also subject to
spending cuts, has decided for its part to close a number of post
offices in order to increase its productivity. So, it wants to help
communities take control of their future but it takes away from
them one of the tools they would need to do so. It is an illogical
situation which must be denounced.
Another example is the decision to create business
development centres. It says to the regions: ``We are going to
give you borrowing power and allow you to obtain the capital
you need in order to use your entrepreneurial spirit'', but at the
same time, it is systematically dismantling the railway system.
You may well ask me what is the relationship between the two.
(1020)
Even if we give tons of money to the regions, if we do not
maintain at least the development infrastructures already in
place, we are wasting our time and our money.
The third example I want to give is the Eastern Quebec
Development Plan versus the decision to close the CBC stations
in the region. The purpose of this plan is to ensure that local
communities whose livelihood depends on forest development
have a bright future and are able to develop their territory, and to
make sure that these communities are viable and enjoy a good
quality of life. However, we also deny these communities the
right to express themselves, to talk with one another by
dismantling their regional communication network. That is
another example of conflicting and unseemly action between the
different tentacles of the federal octopus, if I may.
Finally, the federal government also acted inefficiently in its
parallel interventions with other governments. On the one hand,
in Quebec, a provincial structure was quietly setting up regional
development councils, which evolved in regional consultation
and development councils. These councils developed strategic
plans for every region. All concerned parties in the region were
consulted.
4736
At the same time, the federal government was creating
another structure, the Federal Office of Regional Development.
It was an act of good will intended to inject some money into the
regions, but it also set up other consultation committees which,
for years, operated side by side with the regional development
office. Such a structure does not allow for efficient economic
management. No coordinated tangible results can be achieved
this way since there is no structural relationship between these
organizations. Regions want to stop wasting their energy trying
to convince governments to act in accordance with their own
strategic plans. Up to now the federal government has shown no
sign of being aware of the regions' demands and of trying to be
flexible enough to meet them.
The Gaspé Peninsula and the Lower St. Lawrence regional
consultation and development councils mentioned tourism as
one of their top priorities in terms of development. This year,
one of the first things the Minister responsible for the Federal
Office of Regional Development announced in the budget
speech was that no more money would be allocated for bicycle
paths. Tourism development is, therefore, a priority of the
regions and the message they are getting from the party opposite
is that the money earmarked for these priorities is being cut. To
my mind, this is unacceptable.
Still another reason for the ongoing ineffectiveness of the
federal government's action is the paralysis of sectoral
departments. Let me give you an example. A number of years
ago, a wharf was built in Trois-Pistoles to provide adequate
facilities for fishermen. Over the years, the reason for the
wharf's existence has changed. Today, the region feels that this
wharf could play an important role in terms of tourism and
regional development. It is an important link for the ferry
between Trois-Pistoles and Les Escoumins and it needs to be
upgraded. Wharf maintenance comes under federal jurisdiction,
but we get the feeling that the more the federal government
spends money on areas which are not necessarily its
responsibility, the more it neglects to spend in areas for which it
does have primary responsibility. In this instance, it has refused
to spend money to renovate wharves. It seems to have forgotten
about the river for the past 25 or 30 years.
When a member tries to navigate through this maze, he finds
that he must go knocking on the doors of such departments as
Fisheries and Oceans and Transport. However, development
priorities of the officials working in these departments are tied
to the department's mandate whereas the future of the wharf
should not be tied to regional development objectives, but rather
to tourism. Existing structures are not flexible enough to
respond to changing times and to allow the local community to
take charge of its destiny and make the necessary adjustments.
Federal sectoral departments are too cumbersome and prevent
individual regions from having their needs met.
This is a rather odd message to be sending out to the regions
that want to take their future into their own hands and to
municipalities like Trois-Pistoles which has expressed an
interest in purchasing the wharf, provided it can be properly
renovated. They are at a loss as to where to find someone whose
primary concern is regional development, not simply the
fulfilment of a sectoral mandate. Another example of the federal
government's failure to focus on its traditional areas of
jurisdiction is the lack of vision of pan-Canadian corporations
in so far as the role of regional development is concerned.
(1025)
Consider, for example, VIA Rail and the Canada Post
Corporation. For a number of years now, VIA's policy has been
to abandon rail lines and eliminate passenger rail services in
order to save money. Local communities have been telling VIA
Rail that the train is not only a means of transportation for local
commuters, but it can also serve a wide range of purposes.
This fact was demonstrated most strikingly during the recent
public hearings held by Rural Dignity in the Gaspesian
Peninsula, when over 50 participants demonstrated that the train
serving their region plays a major role in the tourist industry. An
article was even written and published in 60 American papers,
saying that this train really had special value; it could easily be
made profitable, if marketed properly.
It is not within VIA Rail's mandate to promote regional
development in Quebec and Canada. It was established by
Cabinet to meet the demands of Cabinet. It would seem however
that Cabinet never gave VIA any responsibilities with respect to
regional development, judging from all the drastic cuts that
were made. The Liberal caucus denounced these cuts in 1989 in
a quality report listing all that should be done, but now that the
Liberal Party is in power, it has laid this report aside. All we
have to do, really, is dig this report up, update it a little and tell
the people from the Liberal Party: ``Now, carry out what you had
committed to do in this report''.
Let me give you another example of a Crown corporation with
no regional responsibilities: Canada Post. The Canada Post
Corporation was so successful in fulfilling its expenditure
reduction mandate, it has stretched the elastic so much that it
eventually snapped. This government did fulfil one
commitment: it has put a moratorium on post office closures.
But Canada Post itself, within its organization under its board of
directors, has no regional development responsibilities. Its only
responsibility is to make postal services profitable, and in so
doing it may not take the wishes of the regions into
consideration. This is obvious in its day-to-day operations, in
every community.
I think that the federal government should ensure regional
representation on the board of Canada Post and consideration of
the economic, social and cultural impact in its decision making.
I do not think that it is a problem of personalities or people at
any level, be they federal or provincial officials or
politicians--
4737
and the people of eastern Quebec sent a very clear message on
that. In last fall's election, the Liberal Party had a good
candidate in Matane, who according to the old tradition said: ``If
I am elected, I want to be a minister in that government and that
will give the region all it needs for its development''. The people
flatly turned down that approach which has been used for 25
years.
Saviours from outside and heroes who will make development
happen are no longer the way to go. We have strategic planning
and ways to take charge in our regions and I think that the
message rural Quebec gave the federal government is this: ``We
do not want any more fleeting, flash-in-the-pan heroes. We
want people who will work steadily and make structural changes
so that the regions can develop''.
Given the awful unemployment, exodus of young people,
aging population and abandoned land, I think that the solutions
must be drastic and sweeping. Whether in a federal system or a
sovereign Quebec, it will be important in the short term to
recognize the driving role of the regions. The organizations
which arose from people's desire to take control of their own
lives, like Rural Solidarity, Rural Emergency Coalition, Rural
Dignity and the Ralliement of Gaspesians and Magdalen
Islanders, want to ensure that their communities will live, and I
think that what governments do should reflect that.
(1030)
To do so, we must give the envelopes back to the regions.
Regions must have full control over their envelopes. I will give
you an example: the $200 million budget of the Federal Office of
Regional Development could be decentralized by region so that,
in terms of strategic planning for every region of Quebec, the
$200 million allocated for all of Quebec could be replaced with
regional envelopes; every region would then get an extra $10
million or so to spend on its own development.
Sectorial departments should also subordinate their action to
regional priorities. We must ask the Department of Fisheries and
Oceans and the Department of Transport whether their
operations have a positive impact on regional development. Will
the new, clarified air transport taxes hinder or promote regional
development? We must take such actions. We must also assign a
regional development mandate to Canadian corporations such as
VIA Rail and Canada Post, just like the examples I gave earlier.
I myself think that the position taken by many
Quebecers-and it is partly at the heart of our mandate-is that
what has been done in the last 20 years have convinced
Quebecers that our economic problems can be solved through
sovereignty and decentralization. It is important that we have
control over our own development and that the $28 billion in
taxes that we pay to the federal government can be transferred to
the regions so that these taxes can have a major economic
impact and give the regions control over their own development.
If you are wondering why the Bloc Quebecois candidates were
elected, here is an explanation: to denounce a system that does
not work, to effect deep changes and to respond to the Prime
Minister when he says that, to solve economic problems, he does
not want to talk about sovereignty. In fact, our economic
problems can be solved through a complete redistribution of
powers, through decentralization. Our problem is one of
architecture, of plumbing even, and that is why regional
development is a major reason to achieve Quebec sovereignty.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I do not in any way, shape or form
agree with the member's comments here today.
I was elected to the Parliament of Canada in 1988 because I
opposed the Meech Lake accord. I opposed it for three or four
specific reasons, one of which was that I believe the only way to
look after the disadvantaged regions is by having a strong
national government.
I believe that the argument the members of the Bloc are
putting forward here today reinforces the position I took in
1988. What they have been saying through their remarks today
is: ``Decentralize, decentralize. Give us all the money to look
after the regional development problems. Then we will just
separate and go our own way''. What kind of logic is that?
If you are interested in city politics you run municipally. If
you are interested in provincial politics you run provincially.
However, when you are elected to the Parliament of Canada you
come here to build and promote economic strength in the
country.
Why would we support a motion in this House today which
promotes dismembering the country?
The member mentioned in his speech the importance of
tourism. I support the fact that we must be much more
aggressive in marketing tourism in this country. I believe most
members would support that. One of the difficulties is that we
are saddled with a very difficult fiscal framework. We are
saddled with instability. Our economic numbers are not as great
as they should be because the Bloc is sending out negative
signals which are hurting the very objectives it is trying to
achieve.
(1035)
The hon. member's premise has no logic. History will show
that the best economies that we have had in the history of the
country, and the best economy ever in Quebec was when we had
a strong national government.
4738
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, I find those words extremely indicative of the current
unease in Canada, very indicative indeed.
The Liberal Party says that a strong central government will
solve the problem. It would have us believe that good ideas only
come from Ottawa and, if Liberals decide everything, Canada
will withstand any crisis.
But, this argument does not wash. Given the current situation,
the 30 per cent unemployment and the 50-per-cent jobless rate
in the Gaspe Peninsula, can we truly say that the system is
working?
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I just heard the hon. member
comment that it is our fault. But, for the past ten years, who has
been governing in Quebec and in Ottawa: the federalists or the
sovereigntists?
Some hon. members: The federalists.
Mr. Crête: Whether in a federal or a sovereign environment,
if the federal government maintains its current centralizing
position, each time such a comment is made, each time such a
measure is taken, more arguments in favour of sovereignty are
being given to Quebecers.
After hearing such words, any federalist who is disappointed
with Quebec's position joins our ranks.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
I find it a kind of a paradox listening to this this morning.
Recently a member of the Bloc Quebecois came to my riding in
British Columbia. While he was there I had a chance to hear a lot
of their policies. I thought it was really interesting because a lot
of their ideas are not that different from mine.
In fact in identifying the problem and identifying the cause of
the problem federally we were very much in agreement. Where
we came to a difference was in the solution. It sounds like we are
in much the same situation here this morning.
We believe that regional development grants are not working
well, that it is not a good way to redistribute the wealth of the
country. The Bloc have talked about the failure of a system. We
agree with that too but where we come to a difference again is in
the solution.
Because regional development grants do not work the Bloc
feels that this is a reason to separate. We suggest this is a reason
to come to Ottawa and change the system and that is our purpose
in being here.
Interprovincial trade barriers are also something that cost the
individual provinces a tremendous amount of money and that is
in the provincial hands. The amounts of the grants that go to the
Atlantic region were mentioned. Interprovincial trade barriers
cost the Atlantic region more than the total value of their
regional development grants. So there are solutions in the hands
of the Quebec government at this time.
They talked of the VIA Rail system and how there has to be
more subsidies or the continuation of subsidies in order to
enhance tourism and passenger travel. In British Columbia VIA
Rail tried to operate a system that was largely tourist oriented.
Even though it was hugely subsidized it lost its shirt. Private
enterprise stepped in and without any subsidies whatsoever is
now turning a nice profit and causing a tremendous boon for the
various regions of British Columbia that it travels in without, as
I said, any subsidy whatsoever.
There are any number of things that we can talk about such as
the post office. I suggest to the Bloc that a solution to part of the
problems in terms of keeping some of the money at home would
be to deal with some of the internal problems of Quebec.
(1040)
With regard to the regional development grants, we support
the idea that we need a lot of these things that become in part
patronage. Regional development grants do on occasion work. I
am not suggesting that every time they are used they are a total
failure.
However, the federal government has to stop wasting so much
money. The only way it will get its deficit under control is if it
spends less, pure and simple. This is an area where it can cut the
spending. It could then stop taking that money from the
individual provinces and they would be more viable.
I would ask the Bloc if it has a solution that does not involve
separation. We certainly do. We think that is the direction it
should be going in. Give us a solution not an enhancement.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I get of lot of sympathy from this
comment and I want to tell the hon. member that we have been
trying to change the system for 125 years, and particularly in the
last 35 years.
First, we once gave 74 out of 75 seats to the Liberals, with
Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau at the helm, and even with that
representation, Quebec was not able to get what it needed.
Then, we relied on the Conservatives to regain, with dignity,
our place within the Confederation, and that was also denied to
us. We are now at the point where Quebecers feel that a
structural change is needed. We are told that cuts, among other
measures, are required to make real savings.
Take manpower training, a field in which Quebec and Canada
together waste $250 million every year. If this $250 million was
4739
available for development, there is a good chance we would not
have to rely on government initiatives: We would be able to
promote our own development in other ways.
The hon. member asks if there are other solutions, but
sovereignty means that you pass your own legislation, levy your
own taxes and conclude all your own treaties concerning
Quebec's future. If federal legislation and taxes had ensured that
Quebec got what it needed for its development, and if the federal
government had been successful in getting what we wanted
when it signed international treaties, we would stay.
However, the current structure has not given any such results,
and it is particularly noticeable in the case of regional
development. I might add that where I come from we have made
a habit-and this may be another difference-of letting people
who have the right to speak to do just that. It is much more
practical to do so.
The Deputy Speaker: The period for questions and
comments has now expired. Is there unanimous consent to
continue for five more minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I therefore give the floor to the hon.
member for Kamouraska-I mean Madawaska-Victoria.
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais
(Madawaska-Victoria): Mr. Speaker, it is all right,
Kamouraska and Madawaska are quite close to each other.
I think it is very appropriate that a Reform member would
indicate today to this House that he is on the same wavelength as
the Bloc and that his party shares the same vision as the Bloc
partisans about the problems we face and the solution they
advocate.
I also want to mention to the hon. member who put forward
this motion, in which he expressed his concern about
overlappings and inconsistencies in the regional economic
development policies, that we have indeed seen in the past, and
particularly in the last few years, a proliferation of programs
with no realistic goals.
The hon. member has a point there. However, I want to point
out to him that, in the last six months, the Liberal government
has put forth its vision and its action plan. The hon. member
must recognize the value of the infrastructure program which
currently involves all levels of government: municipal,
provincial as well as federal.
(1045)
The infrastructure program implemented by the Liberal
government these last few months gives you a concrete example
of how this government intends to run the country. Nobody can
say that the infrastructure program we just created is
inconsistent and does not take into account the needs of the
provinces and the communities, because there would be no
national infrastructure program if communities had not
submitted proposals approved by the provincial as well as by the
federal authorities.
So, I believe that the Liberals in this House have, in fact,
shown the leadership both Canada and Quebec need at this time.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, the infrastructure program mentioned by the hon.
member is an excellent example. It is a good idea to provide our
communities and regions with the adequate equipment but,
when it comes to the Kamouraska sewer system-for which we
got a very good investment in the infrastructure program; in any
case, it is a good thing that the regional development critic could
get it, since it proves that we can also have the true
power-should we need the authorization of all levels of
government, municipal, provincial as well as federal, to decide
if this hamlet of 500 people needs a sewer system?
This program was said to be interesting but it is quite
inadequate regarding job creation. To me, what has much more
of an impact now is the decision to increase the number of weeks
of insurable employment while reducing the number of weeks of
unemployment insurance benefit. This will cut 1.3 billion
dollars in the Maritimes and in Quebec. As you will see, the
economic impact will be even greater.
Measures might have been taken, in Bill C-17 for example, to
immediately roll back to $3 the contribution of the small- and
medium-sized businesses or to provide for the small businesses
to pay less and for the larger ones to pay more. Agreed, this
would have insured less political visibility, but the economic
impact would have been even greater and respectful of the local
people's entrepreneurship.
The Deputy Speaker: I think that the 5 minute question
period is over.
You want to ask a question of an hon. member from your own
party. I would rather avoid this.
Resuming debate.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, since we deviated a
bit from the normal process by allowing the Liberal Party to take
more time than usual, I hope that hon. members will be given
enough time to make their comments in a few moments.
Since the Liberals were given a five-minute extension, I
would like the same extension to be given to the opposition for
questions and comments.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Gaspé did not get
my point when I said that the five-minute period was over.
Unanimous consent was given for the five minutes.
4740
[English]
The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development, on
debate.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this
debate carefully. It reminds me that just last week the United
Nations development agency, which annually does a survey of
the quality of life among all the countries of the world,
concluded that once again Canadians have within this country
the best, the most tolerant and the most generous system of any
country in the world.
There is a reason for that. It is because throughout our history
as a country we have learned to share. We have brought forward
a number of programs in health care and social assistance,
education and training to ensure there would be some basis of
standards across the country, that there would not be large
disparities and that people would feel they were being equally
treated.
(1050 )
That fundamental reality seems to have escaped the hon.
member who has presented this resolution. In fact the benefits
his and my constituents have been able to enjoy are because we
live in a country of wide diversity and wide differences of
interest, but we have been willing to share. We have been willing
to work and live together to produce a country which has good
economic and human values.
Maybe the unfortunate part of what has happened since the
last election is that there is now within the House of Commons
an Official Opposition which does not recognize or even accept
that fundamental achievement Canadians have been able to
bring about over the some 130 years of our country's existence.
Bloc members look only from the point of view of one, narrow,
limited, regional perspective. They have no sense of what this
country has been able to do.
As a result, they have totally and completely
forgotten-conveniently, I would suggest-just how important
federalism has been to ensure that the poorer regions of the
country are given a real chance. In the early 1980s we wrote into
the charter of rights the principle of regional equality. We are
probably the only country in the world that has put that in as a
basis of its Constitution. We have lived up to that time and time
again with attempts, not perfect, but attempts to ensure that was
lived out in practice.
I am surprised the hon. member in talking about regional
economic development somehow conveniently forgot that one
of the first acts of the Minister of Finance in this new
government was to substantially change the formula for
equalization to ensure that those wealthier areas of Canada
would share more of their wealth with the poorer areas.
The hon. member's province was a major beneficiary of that
program, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. No one
was carping or criticizing or saying: ``We reject it''. The fact is
we brought in a program to ensure there would be equal
treatment across the country.
[Translation]
I submit that that is a good example of how Canadian
federalism is a good way to share efforts and goods among all
Canadians. Unfortunately, the hon. member refuses to recognize
the value of federalism as a way to share good-will in this
country.
[English]
Let me give another example. The hon. member talked about
unemployment insurance. I presume he is aware that last year
the net transfer to the province of Quebec, in the UI system, was
close to $1 billion from the rest of the country to aid those who
were facing unemployment in Quebec. It was even of higher
value than that of the Atlantic provinces or northern Ontario.
Nobody is criticizing. In fact we say that is the way the system is
supposed to work. I find it incredible.
[Translation]
It is unbelievable that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr.
Bouchard-
[English]
-is the one, as my colleague has said, who is going around
upsetting the economy and talking about annexation of western
Canada by the Americans. He is the one who is fragmenting,
destroying and dividing the country. He is the one who is
destroying the idea of equal sharing.
When the hon. member gets down from the pink cloud he has
been living on for so long and comes back to reality, why does he
not tell us how those transfer payments of equalization,
unemployment insurance, the Canada Health Act, pension plans
and student loans would be financed solely by that one province
under its own resources when in fact it faces major debts?
Federalism has worked because we do not see each other in
fragmentary bits and pieces, region by region. We see ourselves
as one country. We realize if we can build the strength of all
regions, we all benefit. That is why we have been prepared to
share. That is the tragedy. The foolishness and silliness of what
is going on today is that those members live in a dream world
thinking that somehow everything would be better if only
Quebec would separate. The hard economic reality is that is not
true.
4741
(1055 )
At some point there will be a reality check and I know where it
will come from. The people in Quebec will make the very clear
statement that it is all right for members of the Parti Quebecois
and the Bloc Quebecois to live in a dream world, but they
understand the realities of a job and support for their families.
They understand the decent idea that we can share across this
country and all benefit from it, not by separating or fragmenting
the country. That is the reality.
In our present system there are many ways in which we can aid
and assist various regions to develop. The basic transfers I have
just talked about are a key element of that, but we also have to
undertake the kind of support for direct intervention, for direct
development.
I listened with some interest to my friends from the Reform
Party who said they do not like regional development policies
either and get rid of them all. I heard the member who said get
rid of them all.
Let me just speak for a moment about western Canada. I am
responsible for the program on western diversification. Over the
last several years about 40,000 to 50,000 jobs have been created
in western Canada as a result of the direct support of western
diversification. We are trying to take an economy that is living
in the broad global context and give it boosts in technologies. I
will give an example.
We have just completed a revamping of our programs so that
we can aid smaller business. We will give repayable
contributions only to those enterprises with less than 50
employees. It means those very small businesses, which today,
as the hon. member knows, have serious trouble getting equity
financing or credit from banks or other financial institutions, are
being given assistance by the federal government. They will be
able to expand plants, buy new technology, develop a new
marketing structure and hire people so that they can compete
just as well as the big guys.
Now there is another party saying to get rid of that program
for small business support and assistance. Yet we know that
about 80 per cent of the jobs will be created by small businesses
with the kind of assistance they need.
I want to talk about western Canada because unfortunately the
hon. member who talked about regional development only
talked about one region. This debate deserves a somewhat
broader context than that, because we are talking about Canada
and all its regions. Let me give one working example which
illustrates what I mean about how important it is not to deny
small business the kind of assistance we can supply through our
regional agencies.
Through our efforts we were able to form a consortium of 150
small food processing companies in western Canada. We
analysed that in terms of the export market into the United
States only 3 per cent of imported foodstuffs on American
supermarket shelves were Canadian, even though we are their
next door neighbour. One of the reasons is that much of our food
processing in western Canada is small. We do not have the big
Westons and others; we have smaller firms.
As the hon. member should know, a whole new series of
quality tests and nutritional tests have to be met in order to
export. A wide variety of standards have to be met in the United
States, Japan and other places. Companies with 15 or 20
employees making something out of a grain product or a dairy
product do not have the extra cash to mount that kind of research
and development and do the testing.
We have encouraged those 150 companies to come together
under the name Food Beverage Canada. We have appropriated
the name Canada for western Canada but that is always done in
Ontario anyway. The support supplied to that association
enables them to undertake marketing, promotion and research
testing. Those 150 companies can now begin to export into the
United States on a much more rational and effective basis. Once
again, it is another example of sharing.
It is the same thing with the Beef Export Federation where it
was trying to develop a market niche in Japan. The hon. member
knows that people in the western Canada beef industry are the
ultimate representatives of free enterprise; they do not want
government assistance. However, that association asked us if we
would work with it and help develop a major market in Japan.
That market has increased by 10, 15 or 20 per cent per year as a
result of intervention by a regional development agency
sponsored by the federal Government of Canada.
(1100)
An hon. member: They could have done it on their own.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker,
listen to that. We now have another voice of reform saying:
``They could have done it on their own''.
The fact of the matter is that they could not do it on their own.
They very clearly said that it was not within the cash flow
position of the companies to develop longer staying power in a
new market or to be there for a year or two to develop networks,
develop products and get promotion going. Therefore they came
together and said: ``Give us a little help''.
It has been a good investment because the money is being
repaid. Last year we recovered $30 million through western
diversification of the contributions we made.
An hon. member: We are putting people to work too.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Yes, we are
putting people to work. We are sending out flyers and we have
people working in western Canada. If the Reform Party had its
way it would still be selling pork chops and beef steaks only to
4742
Calgary and not to Osaka. It is a global marketplace and I wish
the Reform Party would wake up to that fact.
There are areas where there clearly can be substantial changes
and improvements. We have only been a government for six
months and I will tell the House what we have done in that six
months. The hon. member might like to know about this because
clearly from his speech he does not have the full facts at his
disposal.
We are beginning to work in each province with the
development of single window delivery systems, both for the
delivery of manpower programs and business service programs.
We are setting up combined, integrated programs to bring
together all federal departments and to provide single window
delivery to save money. We are doing the same in the area of
training.
Let me use this opportunity to clarify something. I want to be
helpful; I really do. It is my great interest to try to help inform
the Bloc Quebecois about reality. One myth it constantly puts
forward in the House, and I have heard it several times, is that
there is a $250 million waste on duplication in manpower
training.
Do those members know where the figure came from? Do they
have any idea? Maybe they read it in a newspaper. Do they know
where the figure came from? I will tell them. We have analysed
it very carefully.
It was not based on an examination of Canada. They said that
overall in all 18 countries the average administrative cost was
about 5 per cent or 6 per cent. Then someone said that it was 8
per cent in Quebec and therefore that must mean it is $250
million. That was based purely on the broadest concept. We
said: ``Let us go back and look at the figures''. At the federal
level we deliver our programs at less than 5 per cent in the
province of Quebec, not at 7 or 8 per cent, which is one of the
lowest figures of OECD countries.
Would they get confused by the facts? Should they not base
their arguments on something that is real? They would prefer to
live in cuckooland where everything is based on what we want to
believe. They are the ultimate Alice in Wonderland party of ``let
us create a world of our own making and then say it is true, that it
is real''. Then they live in it.
The media in the last couple of weeks talked about
annexations. The member does not belong in politics, he
belongs in science fiction novels. I think he is missing his
calling. I think he is a wasted talent. He should be writing
children's fantasy books or science fiction novels. For goodness
sake, he should deal with the reality of how the country works.
I am quite happy, as I have said throughout, to sit down and
work effectively on what we can do as a country to eliminate
duplication.
The Minister of Industry is working today on a plan to bring
down interprovincial trade barriers. If there is any example of
how to create real wealth in every region of the country, it is by
bringing down the barriers to trade, regulation and manpower
mobility. Who is doing it? The federal government is taking the
leadership, not the individual provinces.
(1105)
If the hon. member wants to create real wealth for his region,
he should stand on his feet and say that he disavows separatist
positions, that he will go to work to bring down the barriers
among all provinces, and that is how to create real wealth and
real jobs for the people in his region.
That is a real form of regional economic development, not
creating more fragmentation, not dividing the country into
further small pieces with higher walls. A much broader level
playing field should be provided so that we can create a full
discourse of commerce, people, capital resources and ideas.
We are living in a world where we need a critical mass of
people and capital. The member is showing me some kind of
book. I am pleased to know he can read. I appreciate his
opportunities, but what does it have to do with the debate? He is
showing us a story in a book called Global Paradox by John
Naisbitt who is one heck of a good American analyst. I am
talking about what is happening in Canada, not what the
Americans say. That is what I am talking about.
The sooner members of the Bloc Quebecois stop reading the
far out speculations of American commentators and get down to
the hard reality of what is happening in Canada, the sooner they
might change their position and their views.
All I can say to the hon. member is that I fully share the
concerns.
[Translation]
I share their concern about unemployment and, like them, I
recognize the need for a solid policy to increase employment in
the area. But at the same time, we must admit that the best way to
contribute to regional development is to develop co-operation
among all levels of government, municipal, provincial and
federal, great co-operation and to implement one-stop shopping
for government services.
[English]
That is the way to approach it. We will be dedicating our full
resources as a government to work at the regional level on
specific programs with provinces, to ensure that all works of our
different departments and ministries at a national level are
dedicated to creating work throughout Canada, and at the same
time try to ensure the maintenance of full financial equalization
4743
and sharing throughout the country so that we can all live, as the
United Nations says, as the best country in the world.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Minister of
Human Resources Development said that he was happy to know
that I could read. I want to tell him that I have a bachelor's
degree in administration from Laval University. I also studied in
English at UBC, in Vancouver, because I have an open mind and
I would never make this kind of accusation. I am perfectly able
to participate in debates on real issues, not on petty statements.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a
minister who just spoke, and I hope all ministers in this
government are not the same. However, I would like to say that I
am glad it is this minister who spoke this morning because he
represents the kind of federalism Quebecers reject. This
minister was there at the time of Prime Minister Trudeau. This
minister was there when Quebec suffered all those rejections.
I will try to lower my voice, Mr. Speaker, because it irritates
my friends across the way to hear the truth. The first thing I wish
to say, and I noted two or three points, of which the minister
should also take note, because you must not forget that this
morning Quebecers are watching you, Mr. Minister, and they
now see what the Canada you represent is really like.
A little while ago, you said that the figures on manpower
training were not right, etc. I would like to remind the minister
that it is Mr. Bourbeau, a federalist in the Quebec Liberal Party,
who mentioned the figure of $250 million. Am I to understand
that the Liberal minister in Ottawa is calling a federalist
minister in Quebec a liar? Is that what I must understand?
(1110)
The other point I would like to underline is that this minister
was there during the Trudeau years. I would like to give him an
example of duplication between Quebec and Canada. In my
riding, the province built a $23-million fish plant when there
was fish-you will recall that before 1984 Quebec shared in the
administration of fishing permits. Do you know what the
federalists in those days, who are still across from us, did? They
built a $16-million plant right beside the one built by Quebec.
That is what they did. That is their kind of regional
development. They come and undermine Quebec initiatives.
I have a few more questions. I have devastating figures about
my riding which I would like to quote for the benefit of the
minister of employment and immigration, even if he does not
like to hear them. In my riding of Gaspé, the unemployment rate
is 27 per cent. The labour force participation rate stands at 42
per cent. That means only four people out of ten are either
working or looking for a job. What happened with the other six?
The federalists discouraged them. What does this Liberal
government have to offer? The recent budget froze the funding
for help centres. We cannot get any money to promote the
innovative suggestions of people in Gaspé and the whole
province of Quebec. The minister is considering reforms, and,
meanwhile, he cuts the funding. It does not make sense.
What about the Employment Development Program? I remind
you that my region, with a 27 per cent unemployment rate and a
42 per cent participation rate, should be considered a disaster
area, and should get enhanced EDP funding to put people back to
work. Well, this funding has been cut, and is now reduced to 20
per cent of what it was before. The Federal Office of Regional
Development has been subjected to a 25 per cent cut by the
Martin budget, by the colleague of the minister who just spoke.
Where are we going? What kind of logic is this? They wonder
why we move a motion on regional development during an
opposition day. They are slashing whatever help was left and
they would like us to believe in federalism. I am sorry, but if the
minister keeps talking the way he does, things will only be
easier for us, come the referendum campaign.
Mr. Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to say that I
was definitely a member of Mr. Trudeau's governement and I am
very proud of it. It is quite special because at that time, we
defeated a proposal for the separation of Quebec.
[English]
And we will defeat it again.
I take this opportunity to make sure the facts are on the record.
I remind members opposite of the impact of the new
equalization formula with the provinces that we brought in a few
months ago in the February budget. This is the value of the 1994
tax base update: Newfoundland, $7.6 million; P.E.I., $5 million;
Nova Scotia, $.8 million; New Brunswick, $5.5; and Quebec,
$70.8 million.
If there is a testament to the kind of federalism we want to
build in the country, it is reflected in those kinds of numbers. We
are prepared as a federal government working on a national tax
base to bring together the wealth of a country and make sure it is
divided and distributed in a way that helps regions with real
needs. This demonstrates to me once again the falsity of the
underlying premise of the resolution.
If the hon. member for Gaspé who just spoke wants another
testament to what is happening, the people in the Gaspé are
seriously affected by the downturn in the fishery and their
resource industries. That is shared by other people in Atlantic
Canada.
4744
(1115 )
What he did not mention with the selective memory that the
separatists seem to have is that the federal government has just
introduced a $1.9 billion program for people in the fishing
industry, including his own riding, through which it will be able
to have substantial weekly benefits, go back to work, have
support for training, for self-employment, for economic
development, for community employment. It will be able to give
some hope to its children by going back to work in a green corps
to replace the fishery, enhance the resources, go back to work to
actually rebuild the resource base of that region.
That was a federal program that we introduced and it would
seem to me that the hon. member rather than complaining and
carping should get to work and do his job as a member of
Parliament and help that program work so his own people can go
back to work.
The Deputy Speaker: I see three members rising to ask
questions. I wonder if there is again a feeling of having
unanimous consent to prolong this question period by five
minutes.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Kootenay
West-Revelstoke first. I see no consent to extend the question
period beyond 10 minutes.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
I can see after what the hon. member stated that he would not
wish to extend the period to rebut the statements he made. He
only wishes to extend it to rebut the statements of others.
The hon. member opposite said that the Bloc Quebecois does
not check into the reality of how Canada works. I would suggest
that the government has not checked into the reality of why the
country is not working.
If you have a dog named Rory and the dog makes a mess of
your house, you say you do not want this dog and you kick it out.
A little while later you bring a dog in, a dog named Brick. Why
should you be surprised if the dog makes the same mess of your
house if it is the same dog with a different name?
There is a lot of selection going on here today. The hon.
member talked about the selective memory of the Bloc. I would
suggest that the hon. member is using selective statistics in
backing his own arguments. He talks about the 40,000 or 50,000
jobs created in the west through government grants and
government funding. How many jobs have we lost in the west
because of the government's overspending and the taxation of
all the different businesses and individuals which rob us of the
ability to do this for ourselves?
The government creates the problem. It gave us a small bit of
a solution to that problem. Then it wants to pat itself on the back
for it.
There is something wrong with a system in which we give our
money to the federal government and then have to beg and plead
to get some of it back through whatever program it decides to
develop. It is very selective how it is given out.
The hon. minister talked about 150 companies that get the
government's benevolent help. What about the companies that
are not in that group, further disadvantaged because now we
have government interference stepping in and saying: ``You are
the good companies so we are going to help you; but we are not
helping you guys with your taxes because we have to get the
money from somewhere to give to these other companies in the
first place''.
When he said we want to bring together the wealth of Canada,
they have sure done that; they have taken all the wealth of
Canada and brought it here to Ottawa and then squandered it.
What we have to do is find some solutions to problems. We are
getting rhetoric from that side, we are getting rhetoric from
every side, and I am probably using a bit of it because I get
caught up in the flow.
In terms of regional development, the problem with
government today and in the past is that it is selective. It makes
these arbitrary choices of who it is going to help and how it is
going to help. The Bloc Quebecois is upset about the money it
pays out and gets back. The west pays out more than it gets back
and we are tired of that as well.
I would suggest to the hon. member that if he is going to use
statistics, use accurate ones, use ones that reflect the true picture
and not his own stilted sort of version of it.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, once
again we are faced with a kind of cheque book federalism. We
have on the one hand members of the Bloc saying: ``We do not
get enough''. The members from the Reform Party are saying:
``We give away too much''.
(1120 )
What ever happened to the notion that there is a country that
tries to share and distribute things? The problem is that we are
now seeing certainly on the benches opposite this sort of small
end thinking: ``What is important is only within my own little
circle''.
I thought what we are trying to build in the country is some
sense of common interest, that we are trying to reach out and
build some strengths together. Unfortunately we seem to have
4745
two parties which think that their only responsibility is to
represent very narrow, specific regional interests, that there is
not such thing called Canada any more. It seems to be forgotten
in their vocabulary. That seems to be the problem.
It is a tragedy that we do not in effect have some groups
opposite which speak from a national interest point of view,
which speak from the perspective of how to help build a
community, how to help pull people together as opposed to this
notion of how to separate them, divide them and start adding
things up by some accounting; we transferred 1.5 here and they
got 1.2 there.
That is how you destroy a country. I say in all honesty to the
hon. member, that is how you destroy a country.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Deputy Speaker: The time has long ago expired. Is there
consent to have further time on the question period?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Five more minutes.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, he
talked about squandering and waste but the fact of the matter is
that all Canadians whether they live in western Canada or
Quebec fundamentally share a national support for health
programs so that we have the best health care system in the
world.
We all basically share and benefit by having a program of
employment education which is one of the best in the world. We
all share and benefit by having one of the best infrastructures in
the world which we are now trying to improve even though the
Reform Party opposes it.
Those are things you do not break down by provincial
boundaries. You look at them from a national perspective and we
are all winners in it.
I would simply say that the next generation of requirements is
to do what my colleague, the Minister of Industry, is trying to
do, to break those barriers down further. We are trying in
western Canada to bring down the barriers among western
provinces and get away from building up barriers, building up
protectionisms, building up new walls or frontiers that the Bloc
Quebecois wants to do and apparently the Reform Party wants to
do.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
I listened carefully to the minister, earlier, say things that are not
totally true. He was talking in a lyrical way, but very cynically,
of his vision of Canadian regional development.
The truth is that his government is against regional
development. His government has just cut, through its budget,
$5.5 billion in the unemployment insurance fund. At the
hearings of the sub-committee on Bill C-17, which is the piece
of legislation that cuts unemployment insurance, people from
the Maritimes came to tell this government, the members of the
government, that it was on the wrong track. These people were
desperate, because they were being cut left and right where they
should not be cut.
That is the government's vision of regional development, to
totally destabilize communities, particularly rural
communities. The federal government should stop trying to
make us cry with the millions of dollars that it sprinkles over
Quebec. In case you did not know it, we pay $28 billion in taxes
every year. So, those millions are no gift. The government
should undertake a complete assessment of federal transfers,
instead of looking only at what suits it. For the last five years or
so, we have been the losers in these tax transfers, given what we
are paying and what we are receiving.
So, the government should stop making us cry with arguments
that are senseless, and most of all, demagogic arguments coming
from a minister who is always demagogic anyway. The
government should stop praising the phantom of the opera, Mr.
Trudeau.
Mr. Trudeau spat on Quebec's aspirations, and if you are
proud of having been part of his government, that is too bad for
you. That will just make things clearer for Quebecers. So, is that
your vision of regional development, to completely destabilize
rural communities of the Maritimes and of Quebec with such a
despicable, outrageous and hated bill as Bill C-17? I ask the
question to the minister.
[English]
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Mr. Speaker, let
me say first to the hon. member that I am really pleased to hear
that he is concerned about destabilizing the economy. I would
hope as a result of that at the very first opportunity he will leave
this Chamber and go to his leader's office and tell him to quit
making those comments. I guess he is taking my advice, he is
leaving right now.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(1125 )
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): As the old saying
goes, if you cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
The fact of the matter is that if there is any one person
responsible today for destabilizing the economy, for causing the
substantial increase of interest rates which is putting real
pressure on our international financing-
[Translation]
It is the leader of the Bloc Quebecois. He is the worst, when it
comes to dealing with stability problems of the economy, and
that is the truth.
4746
[English]
That is the real problem we face. As long as we have the kind
of sermon of separation that we hear coming time and time again
from members opposite, we will continue to face economic
difficulties because the international marketplace is looking at
that problem.
If they were really concerned about the economy and ensuring
that we can start building a stronger economy, getting our
financing back in order, helping solve problems of deficits,
putting more money back into investment, then they would stop
talking about separation. That would be the one contribution
members opposite could really make to economic renewal.
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to support parts of the Bloc's motion. After listening
to the rhetoric that has gone on here today, I kind of get lost.
I enjoy the comments from the other side. I would like to refer
specifically to two matters that have importance to western
economic development: first, the federal government's
prolonged inaction regarding dumping of apples grown in
Washington state; second, the federal government's seemingly
perpetual bungling of the handling of grain.
On Monday, May 9 more than 400 fruit growers gathered at
the Canada-U.S. border crossing near the small community of
Osoyoos in British Columbia to protest the government's lack of
action regarding an extremely perishable agricultural
commodity, apples, which are no longer being protected against
unfair marketing practices by American growers due to
contradictory actions by the federal government.
According to an article in the Osoyoos Times:
When the dumping of U.S. apples occurred in 1987 and 1989, apple growers
in B.C. lost more than $10 million, according to the association. But Ottawa
responded by placing apples under the Special Import Measures Act, a
five-year plan protecting orchardists against dumping. However, in February of
this year the Canadian Import Trade Tribunal chose not to renew the plan,
leaving growers vulnerable to what they call unfair competition.
Imagine what would have happened to fishermen on the east
coast when federal legislation providing special support to them
called the northern cod adjustment recovery package expired on
May 15 if the federal government had simply done nothing.
When the legislation expired, hundreds of fishing families,
the main economic support of their communities, would have
faced bankruptcy. Rather than let this happen, the government
brought in the Atlantic groundfish strategy, or TAGS. While I
cannot speak wholeheartedly in favour of TAGS, I do recognize
that a responsible federal government cannot expect major
sectors of the Canadian economy to go cold turkey from wide
scale government support and government control to full
fledged, free enterprise overnight.
Yet this is exactly what is happening to apple growers in
British Columbia. Their industry was protected, and with not
one effort to prepare growers for the sudden transition that
protection was withdrawn.
The Reform Party is strongly in favour of free trade but we
emphasize that it must be fair trade. In the long run we in the
Reform caucus look forward to the time when Canadian
agriculture can thrive in a free market economy but we
recognize that this time has not yet come.
Okanagan fruit growers must not simply be thrown to the
wolves or Canada may soon face the situation in which having
apple tree in the backyard is merely a hobby and all commercial
fruit must be imported. I believe that is totally unacceptable.
The Reform caucus urges the government to recognize that there
must be an orderly transition to tomorrow's world of free trade.
In the interim, B.C. fruit growers face great economic hardships
which will result in many of them going bankrupt.
(1130)
I hear the hon. member on the other side basically suggesting
that there should be no support given to the B.C. Okanagan fruit
growers. According to David Hobson, president of the B.C.
Fruit Growers' Association: ``Farm families cannot sustain
another year of dumping''.
At the B.C. rally on May 9, B.C. provincial government
representatives, including Okanagan-Boundary MLA Bill
Barlee, former B.C. agriculture minister and now B.C. minister
of small business, as well as Okanagan East MLA Judy Tyabji
pointed out that fruit growers have become entangled in a
conflicting maze of B.C. and federal policies.
More thoughtful government policies could moderate many
economic consequences of the shift to a competitive world of
free market. The lack of competitiveness from either B.C. fruit
growers or west coast grain handlers is not due either to the
farmers and workers involved nor to the conditions supplied by
mother nature.
Canada has been recognized around the world for the high
quality of our tree fruit, particularly our apples. Our growers and
our agricultural researchers deserve much credit for their
dedication and hard work. We are blessed with abundant water
as well as soil and climate that provide some of the best growing
conditions in the world both for grain on the prairies and for the
tree fruit industry, especially in the Okanagan Valley which
historically has provided approximately one-third of Canada's
apples.
The future of Canada's horticultural industry should be
bright. Instead we have growers who face a troubled and
uncertain future due to the lack of wisdom in the way govern-
4747
ment has dealt with the problems of our farms and orchards on
one hand and the transportation of grain on the other hand.
In the past government took the easy route. If a problem
emerged it would throw tax dollars at it. If west coast grain
handlers went on strike or elevator operators locked the union
out, the federal government would wait whatever it considered
the appropriate amount of time to give lip service to free market
forces. Then Parliament would be called on once again as we
were this spring to legislate an end to the strike.
I voted in support of the back to work legislation with the
specific suggestion that the House must develop a long term
solution to problems of handling grain. According to the
Edmonton Journal for May 17 the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food noted ``a wrinkle in the Western Grain
Transportation Act'' which sometimes makes it cheaper to haul
grain east to Thunder Bay before shipping it west to qualify for
cheaper rates. That is the kind of unrealistic nonsense that can
result from federal government intervention.
To compensate for time lost in this spring's grain handlers
strike, complicated by a lack of hopper cars earlier this year
because of grain shipment disruptions in the U.S.A. due to
flooding in the Mississippi River valley, west coast grain
terminals are now being operated on a seven-day per week basis
at full overtime rates. Such seven-day per week operation has
long been necessary to handle the increasing volumes of grain
going through west coast ports. In response to requests for
seven-day coverage the federal mediator to the previous west
coast grain handlers strike allowed it on condition that the
terminal operators pay full overtime rates for weekend work
even if weekend hours were to form part of the regularly
scheduled work week, according to the terminal operators.
In the world of free trade and strong international competition
prairie grain pools cannot hope to remain competitive with
emerging suppliers from other countries under those conditions.
It is obvious that a long term resolution to such problems must
be found.
The minister of agriculture indicated he was interested in such
action with a meeting he scheduled two weeks ago with officials
from the grain companies, west coast terminal operators and
union and federal grain agencies. After the meeting the Alberta
agriculture minister said the immediate concerns about the grain
backlog left little time for discussing long term plans. He said:
``We just managed to scratch the surface in a tentative way''.
For the prairie communities and railroads and the 3,500 west
coast grain handlers who were subject to special legislation in
1974, 1975, 1982, 1988, 1991, and again in 1994, these make-do
meetings are simply not good enough.
(1135 )
Productivity of wheat, productivity per man hour of the grain
handlers and the demand for wheat among the Pacific rim
customers are growing. Both wheat and the production of apples
are important regional aspects of the Canadian economy. For
example, the fresh and processed fruit and vegetable industry
has an annual production that exceeds $4 billion. The fresh fruit
and vegetable sector alone accounts for $1.8 billion.
Regarding wheat, according to green matters, I quote: ``The
Far East and Oceania, home to 3.2 billion consumers, could
account for 40 per cent of world wheat trade by the end of the
century. Population and income growth, increased urbanization
and the resulting dietary shift away from rice are expected to
lead to greater use of wheat based products. Canada could secure
as much as 30 per cent of this market''.
The Canadian horticultural action plan published by
agriculture Canada in 1993 recommended that agricultural
policies be changed in several areas. Currently the federal
government has piecemeal agricultural policies which see wide
differences from province to province.
In conclusion, overall the Reform Party caucus is in favour of
as little federal government intervention in our regions as
possible. However, we recognize that in the transition from
yesterday's heavily supported and controlled economy to
tomorrow's world of free trade, orderly, thoughtful and
reasonable steps must be taken to ensure that survival,
particularly of Okanagan apple growers and prairie grain
producers, are looked at in a different light. The federal
government's intervention is often inefficient at best and
harmful to regional development.
The Deputy Speaker: I understand that the hon. member for
Okanagan-Shuswap wishes to share his time with the member
for Capilano-Howe Sound.
Mr. Stinson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Then there are five minutes for
questions.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I caution the hon. member in his
remarks, saying that he would want to get a little closer to the
Bloc. I cannot believe that the Reform Party is trying to destroy
Canada whereas the Bloc's specific mission is to destroy
Canada. Right now it is doing a very good job of it. We really
should not associate with the Bloc.
A month ago I went to members of the Reform Party and asked
them to participate in a mission to China whereby we would
export Canadian products and services. I could not get any
support.
Yet the previous member of Parliament from Kelowna, Mr. Al
Horning, came to Beijing, China with us on this mission. He was
4748
there for the express purpose of selling apples, the fruit of the
Okanagan Valley, and also ginseng.
The members of the Reform Party cannot have it both ways.
They stand here in the House of Commons and say they do not
want any government interference or government help, but here
is a specific example where we should be supportive and come
to the aid of not just the fruit growers but also deal in a
substantive way with the grain problem.
That is the point that I want to make. The Reform Party has to
decide. Either there are times when they really need
Government of Canada assistance or they do not. They cannot
have it both ways.
Mr. Stinson: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member on the
other side. Maybe the ears get plugged or maybe we are
misinterpreted. The understanding of what is being said from
this side is not quite there.
First, who says that because we are on opposite sides that one
party or another cannot come up with a policy of which part can
be supported by the other parties. Just the Liberals say that if it is
not a Liberal policy nobody should support it.
I have sat here since the beginning of the session and all I have
heard is how well you people on the other side want to get this
country going. Yet you sit over there and refuse to accept any
suggestions from any side on this. If it is not Liberal it does not
wash, that is your way of thinking.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Work with the
separatists.
(1140 )
Mr. Stinson: There we go again. If it is not to your liking,
everybody has to be against Canada. We have tried to introduce
bills and motions in full support of Canada but that side does not
support them. They go off on their own rhetoric.
The Reform Party caucus has stated all along that you cannot
just totally cut off everything.
An hon. member: You have to work with the Bloc.
Mr. Stinson: No, no. We are trying to work with the
government. Unfortunately there are certain members on the
other side who refuse to listen.
When you are trying to further the output of companies it
cannot be done through grants but you cannot cut them off
instantly. It does not work that way. First the field has to be
level. The member or his colleague mentioned it before in
interprovincial trade barriers. We have more interprovincial
trade barriers in our own country than we do for exports from
other countries.
It has been years. You have had your chances before. Now you
are starting to listen a little bit. Not very much, just a little bit. I
can understand that over here. It is too bad that gets lost over on
the other side.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Time has expired. We
would ask both of the members who just spoke to try to put their
remarks to the Chair. The ``you'' should just refer to whoever is
in the Chair, not to people on the other side of the House.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I
have studied economic development for the last 30 years of my
professional life. I would like to put some historic perspective
into this discussion.
In the post-war years in the 1950s and 1960s there were two
economic development models floating around in the academic
world and in the world of reality. On the one side we had the
Soviet Union. It promised to solve all problems of economic
development through deliberate central government action of
planning and strict control over the lives of its members.
On the other extreme we had the market liberal model of the
19th century which believed that economic development was
essentially the responsibility of individuals and that the role of
the government was limited to setting down rules that protected
and set up property rights, law and order, protection of
individuals from both foreign and domestic interference. It
essentially believed that minimal government was best to set
free the energies and entrepreneurship of the individuals.
There was a lot of discussion during this period as to which
was the best model, which would best succeed in raising the
welfare of people in this world. It was largely a theoretical
model because we never, ever have had any experience with the
kind of planning model which was used in the Soviet Union.
We now know differently. We have now learned that the
alleged success of the Soviet Union was all a big lie, that after all
planning does not work.
At the same time we have the very great success of the Asian
tigers, Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong, which in a very short
time by using basically the model of the libertarian 19th century
market oriented philosophers succeeded in bringing
unprecedented rates of economic growth to their people.
I believe that the recent experiences are directly relevant to
what is going on in Canada and what I believe Canada should do.
Unfortunately in my judgment in the post-war years the
Government of Canada travelled a great deal toward the model
that is exemplified by the experiences in the Soviet Union and
Cuba. I do not wish to say that we have become totalitarian. I
merely wish to say the government has taken on the role of a
major agent in economic development. This is in contrast to the
idea that the government should merely facilitate economic
development through some basic rules.
4749
(1145)
We heard from a couple of representatives from the
government ministry this morning. They still believe they can
do essentially what has failed in so many other countries around
the world. They believe they are responsible for the export
success of some industries which they have mentioned.
If there really is a project in Canada which can demonstrably
be successful in exporting products to China which it now
cannot do, many greedy capitalists in New York and elsewhere
would love to put money into such a project. If it is worthwhile it
should be done by the private sector.
When there is a government agency which says: ``Fill out 15
forms and subject yourself to all kinds of hearings and then we
will give it to you'', no wonder they all come to the government
and say: ``We will do it your way. It is much easier than
subjecting ourselves to the rigours of the market''. Then the
minister can say: ``Oh, what a great success this was''.
If it had been anticipated to be a great success, why did the
private sector not do it? The private sector would have done it,
but one of the problems in Canada is that the government is
constantly stepping in and removing the incentive for the private
sector to engage in this kind of development.
The future of Canada can go in either of two ways. One is the
vision of the present government, which is continued
government involvement in regional development projects. In
the rest of the world it is almost a totally discredited approach to
economic development. There is hardly an economist in the
world who will disagree with the proposition that the
government cannot pick winners. The government is not good at
picking winners for economic development and which of the
industries should be supported. The failure rate is extremely
high.
Remember that every time the government supports an
industry and then fails, it has taken away money from the rest of
Canadians. They are therefore less able to do the kind of
economic development projects which traditionally were within
their abilities.
My vision for Quebec and Canada is let us make our country
and Quebec after the model of Switzerland. Let us have free
trade. Let us have a federation where all of the policies for
economic development and social development are undertaken
at the lowest level possible.
The minister said that unless we do it from Ottawa we will not
have a country. Switzerland has a very strong sense of country,
but a very weak central government. The government in
Switzerland is doing what the 19th century model says it should
do: provide security, internal rules, freedom, property rights.
That is what the Swiss government is doing. To say that unless
we take money away from the rich provinces or cantons and give
it to the poor there will not be a country is obsolete. That model
has failed. Just look at the countries which have pushed it to the
extreme.
In conclusion, I support the position of the resolution that is
before us today. The government should generally support
decentralization of function. It should go back to the function it
had in the first place up until the end of the second world war.
(1150 )
Also, if I may be so bold as to suggest, although I am not
supporting it, but if it were to take place unhappy as I would be
that Quebec became independent, I do hope it would take the
model of Switzerland and not that of Albania in deciding which
policies it would adopt with respect to trade and economic
development. If Quebec were to become like Switzerland then
many of the fears which have been voiced about the
consequences for the rest of Canada, even the consequences for
the people of Quebec on independence would be unwarranted
and unjustified.
I wish I could be optimistic about the people of Quebec and
the Government of Quebec accepting my advice. Unfortunately
from what I have heard in this House we will not have much
support for a market Liberal type of policies. I am afraid the
indications are and it makes me very sad that we will move
closer toward the model that has failed.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Mr. Speaker, I am very
saddened by the hon. member's comments. I think I actually
heard him giving advice to the separatist element of the country
of how they should properly separate. This follows more on the
heels of what the Minister of Human Resources Development
said about the problems with this great nation of ours. There are
two parties in the House each with its own single focus which
seems to be on separating us and making us different.
The hon. member went on with a history lesson. He tells me he
is an economist but in fact, he must be a historian. He wants to
take us back into the history of the country, a history which
incidentally has never existed, a laissez faire economy in which
government is not involved in the economy whatsoever. The
government's only function is presumably to make postage
stamps. This economy has never existed in the world. An Adam
Smith economy has never existed. The reality is the great United
States, that great capitalist country has all kinds of these
programs.
The hon. member went on to talk about China, the new
evolution and the new world. I note the Reform Party refused to
send people to China. I was one of the ones who was honoured to
4750
go and support some of our small and medium sized businesses.
Some of them were from the west.
In talking to the people of China I was surprised to learn that
in spite of their demand type of economy they were all working.
There was no unemployment. I am not supporting a communist
system, but I am saying that when I look back on the situation in
Canada I realize we have one of the highest standards of living in
the world.
If I took anything seriously from the member's comments,
somehow we would be all destitute. I would like the hon.
member to comment on some of those aspects of our economy.
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Speaker, the more I listen to people like the
hon. member who just spoke, they should get a lesson in
listening. There are so many things I am supposed to have said
which I never said. I will let Hansard stand for that.
I never supported Quebec separation. However I believe it is
not in the interests of the people of Quebec or Canada for us to
refuse to think about what policies they might adopt if they do
decide to become independent. I will justify that any time.
(1155 )
Also, I never mentioned the people of China. If you go to
China you will get shepherded around by a guide like I did. I
have been to China. You see what you want to see. In the 1930s
people came back from the Soviet Union saying: ``There is no
unemployment. The Soviet Union is a model for economic
development. Let's go that way''. The NDP for a long time
pushed that line until finally somebody said what Stalin had
done and what lies had been perpetrated on us.
Since we have begun to intervene strongly in our economy in
the 1960s with all the programs the hon. member's party is so
proud of, the rate of economic growth in this country has
decreased. It has gone from one of the biggest in the OECD
down to the middle.
Before Sweden started its massive programs of the sort
members wish more of, it was the country with the highest per
capita income in the world. However, it went to where it is now,
which is in the middle. In the last 20 years it has had the smallest
growth in per capita income. History speaks clearly that the
model of maximum involvement of the government in economic
development has failed. The empirical evidence is in.
I would like to reiterate what I have said and the advice I can
give as a 30-year student of economic development. Quebec
demands for decentralization of this process of economic
development. Keep more of the money there and let them do
with it what they want to. This would be in the interests of the
people of Quebec. Similarly this kind of approach might very
well be the solution to keeping the country together, a looser
federation modelled after that of Switzerland. Nobody can say
that Switzerland is not a country. We can achieve that here, but
we have to have it as a goal.
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately the five minutes are up.
I see someone else wishing to ask a question. Is there unanimous
consent to extend the period?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, to the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound,
Switzerland is much smaller than Canada. It is not as diverse in
geography and population and it does have a very different
economic outlook and economy.
My point to the hon. member regards economic development
which we are talking about today, and not the development of
new countries. In economic development Canada has acted as a
unified country to serve all the regions, to serve them as
equitably and as fairly as we can.
In Atlantic Canada, there is the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, better known as ACOA. It helps to
sustain some of the industries which cannot take on new
technologies, new markets, new global competition without a
little assistance. Let me give an example of what happened
during the first week of May in my home town of Truro, Nova
Scotia.
I attended a sod turning ceremony at Intertape Polymer Group
Inc. The head office of Polymer is in Montreal. It has a plant in
Nova Scotia where it manufactures synthetic fibres, plastic tape
for the backing of carpets, polysac bags, even large sacks for
bales of hay. This high tech company markets globally. As I
said, the head office is in Montreal and there are five branches of
that plant in Virginia, Florida, Louisiana, Montreal and Truro.
The company was looking at expansion. We, through ACOA,
gave $1.4 million to Polymer to expand in Truro and the parent
plant put in $15 million, for more than $16 million of investment
in my home town. This investment created 45 new jobs for more
than a total of 300 jobs in Truro, not Louisiana. We got ACOA
funding as a stimulus and the parent company put the additional
money in because that was where the best investment was for the
best growth in exports from our ports to global markets
throughout the world.
(1200)
That is the advantage of regional economic development.
That is a success story of long term jobs, sustainable jobs and a
sustainable economy in the Atlantic region that we appreciate
and love Canada for. That is what economic development is all
about.
I hope the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound
appreciates where we are coming from.
4751
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Speaker, one of the great troubles we have as
economists is that people always see their narrow, tiny little
piece of the world. The world does not work that way.
A month ago I gave a speech on the damage done by the
economic policies of the government on what they call charity to
the regions.
An hon. member: We do not call it charity.
Mr. Grubel: I know you do not call it charity but that is what
it is.
The other side of charity is now showing up in every country
of the world that has gone too far with charity. I am not against
charity, just how much. It has another side. With charity we also
create dependence. Until the program of regional redistribution
was enacted the income in the maritime provinces was a bit
behind that of the rich centre.
The problem of economic development was solved by slow
outward migration. Chances were that outward migration would
have maintained income in the regions equal or near equal to
that in the centre.
However, what did we do? We instituted in the name of
charity a program which when exposed turned out to have been a
disaster. It told the people of the maritimes to stay where they
were and, if they fell behind, they would be given money. They
would be given charity. What happened? They became so
dependent on it that when the fish disappeared, when an
economic crisis developed, they ended up having the worst
possible kinds of problems.
We do not give money to our children after a certain stage
because we know if we keep giving them money they will never
become independent. Yet here we have a state institution which
continuously says: ``Stay poor, we will take care of you''.
This is the long run perspective on those kinds of programs
which I believe has to be brought out in our discussion of where
we are going into the future.
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais
(Madawaska-Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I am appalled by the
comments of the member who just spoke. He talked about
charity to Atlantic Canada and before that he talked about
history.
Perhaps the member needs a little lesson in history. Atlantic
Canada was one of the most prosperous regions when Canada
was built, at the time of Confederation. The Atlantic region
helped Quebec open up its waters to the world, to the detriment
of Atlantic Canada. It helped develop western Canadian
agriculture, and we are here as Atlantic MPs listening to western
MPs telling us that we are charity cases.
Mrs. Tremblay: Yes, you are.
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: The hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata also.
I want the member to withdraw his remark, his insult to the
population of Atlantic Canada including the MPs in the House
who represent them. We are here because we were
democratically elected. We were elected as members. I want the
member to withdraw his remarks about Atlantic Canadians.
(1205)
The Deputy Speaker: The member did not indicate that she
was rising a point of order. With great respect the word charity is
not an unparliamentary word.
The member has made her point very effectively. I will also
give the member for Capilano-Howe Sound a chance to give
his perspective on the issue.
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
reply. I wish the hon. member would read what I said when I had
an opportunity in a systematic way to outline my views on the
matter.
I am in full agreement that the maritimes at a time when the
world's wealth was determined by the availability of natural
resources was one of the most prosperous regions of the world.
The people of the maritimes were working very hard then and
they are working very hard today. They would be most
prosperous today, I am saying, if the government had not made
the mistake of saying to the people of those regions: ``You can
stay there as long as you want to. We will always maintain your
income at a certain level''.
The world has changed. Wealth today is no longer a function
of natural resource availability. Singapore today has moved into
the league of industrial countries and Singapore does not even
have its own water supply. The source of income and wealth
today is human capital which functions, unfortunately for the
resources of the countries of the world, only in big cities. That is
why income is so high in large cities.
We would not have today the difficulties we are seeing in the
maritimes, in my considered judgment, if we had not had a
program motivated by the charitable instincts of Canadians,
which I appreciate. That is the only point I wish to make.
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 43(2), I wish to let you know that the speeches
from the Bloc Quebecois members will be limited to 10 minutes
in order to allow more members to address the subject matter of
regional development.
First, I would like to mention the open-mindedness of some
members who are looking for solutions to today's motion on
regional development instead of dwelling on our differences.
4752
As we can see, regional development is a complex and
troubling matter which is a unique combination of economic and
political notions. Defining the developed regions can be quite a
challenge if we compare Montreal to Gaspésie or Abitibi. The
fact that regional development depends largely upon national
economic growth is another problem too.
It was only in the 1960s that Canadian politicians realized that
all regions were not developing at the same rate and decided to
set a series of programs based on a regional development federal
policy to eliminate those disparities.
Until then, public authorities thought that federal programs
aimed at promoting national economic growth would also be
beneficial to all regions, which was not the case. That could
have been more or less true in times of prosperity, but the
disparities have not disappeared. Ever since, they have not
succeeded in improving the situation of the regions which
unfortunately have too often the highest unemployment rates.
(1210)
The implementation of programs to alleviate regional
disparities led to the creation in 1969 of the Department of
Economic Regional Expansion which later became Industrial
Regional Expansion after merging with Industry and
Commerce.
In 1987, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion
was once more dismantled, and its federal responsibilities are
now those of the Federal Office of Regional Development.
The problem is that the various regions not only do not have
the same financial means but their development opportunities
also differ, resulting in what has become to be known as
``regional disparities''. However, the concept itself of regional
disparities creates a problem. An easily identifiable
phenomenon, regional disparities-if we talk of a sector like
Toronto or a region in the Maritimes-have very often been
mistaken for regional development. This explains why, after
identifying a higher unemployment rate in some provinces, the
government adopted job creation policies, in other words
policies that would possibly disguise the symptoms without
eliminating their cause.
The fact of the matter is that a difference in the level of
unemployment, productivity or income can be explained by
many factors affecting the regional economy together or
separately and, in many instances, each case calls for different
measures.
In summary, regional development programs have no doubt
given positive results over the years, but in the majority of
cases, they have not succeeded in alleviating regional
disparities in Canada.
The disappointment voiced about those programs brought
about frequent reorganizations-which I have listed-of federal
initiatives in that area. However, many of those initiatives
showed that various governments wanted to have an impact on
regional development policy without wondering whether it was
consistent with the existing needs and programs.
However, many programs were designed only for job
creation, with no thought of first changing the underpinnings of
local economies, which would have paved the way to
sustainable growth. Usually, job creation means economic
growth. We should be careful not to confuse growth and
development. Growth does not imply anything as to the future of
an area, whereas development means that extensive changes
will improve the ability of the region to generate wealth.
Some 25 years ago, the federal government commissioned a
group of professors from the Université de Montréal to conduct
a study on Canada's economic development. This study is
responsible for the social and economic concept whereby the
main ingredients of development- capital, higher education,
technology and decision-making-are concentrated around
major urban centres. It is assumed that the surrounding areas
will benefit from an active urban centre.
Over the past 25 years, we have had several opportunities to
evaluate the perverse effects of this theory: chronic
unemployment in the regions, emigration of our young people,
and under-financing of regions. Yet, no serious effort has ever
been made to counter this approach.
The first thing to do to foster regional development is to make
money available for investment. Mr. Daniel Johnson understood
that, and his strategic plan for the Montreal area included the
creation of a corporation called Innovatech and the allocation of
$300 million. He had understood the importance of capital,
something we are lacking in the regions.
That same government encouraged all regions in Quebec to
draw up a strategic plan and gave them $3 million each, for a
total of some $50 million for two thirds of Quebec, while the
Montreal area, with one third of the population, was getting
$300 million. Clearly, a better balance would have been
advisable and would have helped the regions more.
That example shows all too well that the political weight is
inversely proportional to the democratic weight in the area of
regional development planning. Therefore, it is important, even
though public funds are less abundant than before, to allocate
sufficient amounts to allow investors and businessmen in the
regions to get the levers working on their behalf.
Federal-provincial agreements on development are one of the
instruments that regions can use. However, the standards and the
decision process should be made more flexible in order to
4753
reduce delays and obstacles. Also, the money should come from
new funds and not from funds taken from one program to finance
another.
There are also other ways of stimulating regional economy; I
am thinking here about tax measures. During the eighties for
example, mining exploration companies benefitted from a
flow-through share program which allowed a tax credit worth
133 per cent of investments, once federal and provincial tax
credits were calculated. Thanks to that program, individuals
could invest tax deductible venture capital, which is greatly
needed, and companies had funds to operate and thereby
discover new deposits that are in operation today.
(1215)
People should know that there is at least a seven-year period
between exploration activities and the moment when a mine
begins full production; that is why it is so important for the
mining regions of the country that funds be allocated to support
research and exploration for future development.
It is possible, Mr. Speaker, to be creative and to come up with
new tax incentives suitable for specific development sectors in
different regions. In the same vein, we must give investors loan
guarantees and allow them interest-free periods when they
borrow money in order to contribute to regional economic
recovery.
We could also offer tax benefits to companies who set up or
maintain their headquarters in the region instead of locating in
large centres. The feeling of belonging and the sense of civic and
social responsibility of people living in the regions are directly
dependant on the presence of decision-makers in their
community.
In my riding of Abitibi, we really suffer from the sale of large
corporations to multinational logging companies. Like my
fellow citizens I regret the situation that resulted.
Other conditions come into play to stimulate a region's
activity and the government can act upon them. It can stimulate
sectors like transport, telecommunications and support research
in the region's socio-economic component, whether it be
fisheries in the Maritimes, forestry in my region, or mining.
If we want to be able to meet the challenges of tomorrow, we
must put decentralization as a basic tool for change at the heart
of major economic and political debates. Already implemented
in a lot of countries, decentralization seems to be an important
and unavoidable factor in the evolution of a modern Quebec. Its
success relies on the political will to make local government
responsible for certain aspects of economic, social and cultural
development.
The main objective of decentralization is to allow citizens to
take over the development of their economic, social and cultural
environment, and to give them the power, through their elected
representatives, to influence matters of concern to them in their
daily life.
Not only does decentralization put governments in closer
contact with the people, making them more able to meet the
needs of the population, promote public participation, and
diminish red tape, it is also aimed at preserving local customs
which make up a community's heritage. Thus, a central
government finds it harder to unilaterally impose the values and
way of thinking of national elites. However, I realize that
decentralization is not a cure for everything that ails us, but it
does have the merit of bringing power closer to the citizens,
allowing them to voice their opinion on development policies
and public administration and to have a say when the time comes
to set priorities and choose appropriate measures.
At the present time we are witnessing the delegation of power,
rather than a true decentralization. In the context of a real
decentralization, duties and responsibilities would be shifted
onto local governments, enabling them to have a decisive
influence on the development of their community.
Decentralization would create conditions favourable to the
formulation and implementation of a regional development
strategy which would complement sectoral national policies.
Such a strategy would maximize the potential of each region and
identify specific sectors of activity.
Decentralization is a form of government characterised by the
transfer of authority from the central government to local
governments. It rests on the free administration of territorial
communities. I believe that it would foster long-lasting job
creation, which in turn would lessen citizens' dependence on the
welfare state.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member in his presentation stated that he wants both a reduction
in taxes and an increase in government spending on these
regional development programs.
It seems like a contradiction to me and I would like to ask the
hon. member how he would propose we go about making these
tax decreases while at the same time increasing spending on
regional development programs.
(1220)
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: Mr. Speaker, to answer the question, I do not
believe that I ever said I wanted a reduction in taxes. I did talk
about transferring more money to the regions.
I think the Reform Party agrees with us that this would be a
more effective way of managing our own money, instead of
letting outsiders make decisions that affect local communities.
We know that people in our region are quite resourceful when it
comes to many fields of endeavour.
4754
For instance, I cannot see myself telling fishermen what to do,
because I know nothing about the fishery, just as someone who
has no experience in the mining sector and who lives 1,000 miles
away from the region would not be in a position to formulate
policy for this sector.
I apologize if I did not make myself clear and if the hon.
member understood me to say that I wanted a reduction in taxes.
That is not what I said. I said I want more money to be
transferred to the regions so that they can take responsibility for
their own future.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank the hon. member for Abitibi for his intervention. I was
very interested in his discussion about transfers. I presume we
are talking about transfer payments, all kinds of payments that
go from the federal government into the local provincial
jurisdictions.
I also listened with interest with respect to the empowerment
of individuals within the province, in particular his province of
Quebec. In view of that thought process I wonder if what he is
suggesting is that with something like the equalization payment
transfer system we should be transferring these moneys directly
to the municipalities in the province of Quebec and not to the
provincial government. Would that be his suggestion?
[Translation]
Mr. Deshaies: Mr. Speaker, those who worked in regional
development planning know that municipalities are not the only
bodies involved. Quebec has RCMs, regional county
municipalities, which bring together many municipalities and
set regional priorities.
These groups or CRDCs, which also work on joint action, all
bring together people from a county or a region; here we are
talking about a county as a political unit but there are also
regional units with their own particularities. These people meet
and set policies which they apply with the funds received. For
example, if we in Abitibi want to promote tourism with the
funds received, we can use those funds for economic
development, but if the decisions are made in Montreal or
Ottawa and they say that tourism is no longer a priority that they
encourage, we do not qualify for funds.
That is really how we can develop our regions, not by waiting
for directions to come from the provincial level in Montreal or
the national level in Ottawa. I think that the debate should be on
this issue. We must know if each region can take charge; it is not
a matter of knowing how much it will get. The amount can
always be negotiated, but how it will be negotiated is the most
important point.
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak on this Bloc Quebecois motion respecting regional
development. It condemns the federal government's ineffective
regional development interventions.
In fact, according to the April 13, 1994, newsletter of the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, or FORD, in
Quebec, the employment level was still 73,000 jobs short of its
pre-recession level. Major disparities have been reported in
documents from the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec.
For the 1980-1992 time frame, Montreal ranked 19th out of
25 metropolitan areas in Canada in terms of job creation.
Montreal has the fifth highest unemployment rate of all these
metropolitan areas.
(1225)
As far as poverty is concerned, there were 674,000 people
living in poverty in Montreal, that is to say 370,000 more than in
all of Atlantic Canada. And when I say this, I am by no means
minimizing the impact of poverty on Atlantic provinces. In fact,
I will take this opportunity to say that regional development
programs are not hand-outs but a responsibility that all of us
must share.
In a speech delivered on March 8, 1994, the Minister of
Industry stated: ``Our party and our government are clearly
committed to economic development and job creation in the
Montreal area''.
How many specific measures and clear commitments
regarding regional development in Montreal were included in
the Minister of Finance's budget? None, not one.
The people of Montreal will have to make do with whatever
will trickle down to them from the $150 million fund, the
Montreal development fund, announced in 1992 by the
Conservative government. I did not know the Liberals were this
happy with what the Conservatives had done.
Not only will the FORD-Quebec be affected by
departmental operating budget reductions, but its own transfers
to business will be cut by $70 million, or 25 per cent of its total
budget, over the next three years.
Let us take a brief look at the problem in Montreal. According
to the Federal Office, Montreal's growth is curbed by its many
slow growth sunset industries, with few high technology
industries which still depend mainly on military contracts.
The Lachine Canal region, the cradle of Canadian
industrialization, and east-end Montreal are two areas of
chronic underemployment.
The Island of Montreal was also left a heritage that seriously
hampers its development: contaminated soils. According to
experts in this field, over 5,000 hectares show environmental
damage. In addition, the unchecked suburban development of
Montreal has led to an urban sprawl out of proportion to its
population.
4755
This urban sprawl has increased the burden on Montreal's
road system and shrunk its municipal tax base.
The City of Montreal has estimated it needs $2 billion to
modernize its basic infrastructure. The scant $200 million
promised under the tripartite infrastructure program will not go
very far in resolving a problem of this magnitude. The Liberal
government could have focused its infrastructure program on
renovating the basic infrastructure, as the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities initially proposed.
The federal Liberals thus abandoned an important initiative in
the City of Montreal, the engine of Quebec, in favour of the
shortsighted election requirements of a provincial Liberal
government in distress.
The regional transportation network still shows obvious
deficiencies: chronic congestion of several road segments,
advanced deterioration of the road infrastructure, which
compromises the network's efficiency and safety, as well as
discontinuity of the road network.
Let me also mention the underutilization of the aging rail
infrastructure. This situation seriously complicates the
transportation of passengers and freight throughout the
territory, thus affecting people's quality of life and the economic
competitiveness of local businesses.
The major transportation infrastructures, namely the two
airports, the port and the railways, which confirm the economic
vitality of the Montreal region on the global markets, are faced
with a quickly and deeply changing environment.
Practically all of these major facilities come under federal
jurisdiction. Most of the measures that could help are the
responsibility of this government; this is no doubt its most
dismal record.
But Montreal also has strengths. The first and the most
important one by far is its people. Indeed, as the bad news kept
hitting our people, they became more resilient. A spirit of
solidarity developed in the neighbourhoods, and local political
and socio-economic elites joined forces.
In fact, a number of regional exercises were undertaken,
including the Pichette report, as well as the 1992 conference of
Greater Montreal mayors, whose theme referred to the Greater
Montreal as a strong entity asserting itself. Moreover, the need
for interregional solidarity is being recognized in every regional
discussion and meeting in Quebec.
(1230)
In that regard, the FTQ stated this, during its 1992 congress:
``To revitalize Quebec's economy, the development of Montreal
must not be opposed to that of the regions. Regional
development in Quebec will have to take into account the
regions' complementarity and promote interregional
development''.
The task force chaired by Mr. Claude Pichette held a vast
consultation exercise with Montreal stakeholders, and a clear
wish for autonomy emerged. We must particularly point out
regional development initiatives in urban districts by CDECs,
which are the Corporations de développement économique
communautaire. In this regard, it is more than desirable to
extend agreements between the different levels of government,
the City of Montreal, and CDECs.
The Pichette report also pointed out that Greater Montreal's
strategic plan had recognized the importance of the role played
by CDECs, and in fact proposed to strengthen their means of
action to promote job development. Indeed, the stimulation of
employment is the primary goal of CDECs. However, these
corporations were painfully trying to find their way around
through the current duplicating and mess in the occupational
training programs of the federal and the provincial
governments. New corporations are being created in Ahuntsic
and Côte-des-Neiges, or are in the development stage, as is the
case in Montréal-Nord.
Business assistance is the second sector of activity of CDECs.
It seems however that such partnerships between the various
levels of government, the city of Montreal and community
organizations must be based on longer-term agreements,
because they deal with structural problems, social as well as
economic issues that are linked to the de-industrialization of the
Montreal area, as was mentioned in the Pichette Report.
Provincial and federal civil servants still have some serious
reservations about this kind of partnership.
In the areas of local control, development, decentralization
and priority planning, our communities have done their share.
The city of Montreal has actively supported them and has often
acted on their behalf with the higher authorities. At best,
resource allocation to the CDECs is more like a redistribution of
old money. That means less money for everyone when resources
are scarce. There is no will to act. Consultations with the people
and the community organizations, interregional initiatives and
local control must all be supported. The people in Montreal have
learned to rely only on themselves and have shown how dynamic
they can be.
It is also important that the regions be in charge of their
economic development. The federal government should yield to
this evidence. What the regions really want is some support
from other levels of government, and not more government
intervention and so-called national standards. By definition,
regions have their very own identity, they are not merely a part
of the country. They have special features and special needs.
Therefore, it is important that we recognize, for example, that
the Montreal census metropolitan area is a region in its own
right. This metropolitan area has a core city, that is Montreal,
whose regional and international characteristics must be
recognized and supported by its regional partners as well as by
the higher levels of government. It is important also that the
federal
4756
government be committed to respecting the development of this
greater area.
In fact, the federal government must recognize Greater
Montreal as the ``representative of the metropolitan area'' in
economic matters and it must coordinate its economic
development action at the regional level. The lack of efficiency
of the Liberal government in matters of regional development
results in an administrative chaos and sterile overlappings
which are harmful to the economic growth of all regions.
I would indeed like to quote the recent figures of the
Economic and Regional Development Agreement, or ERDA. In
the last stages of the agreement and only a few months before it
expired, on March 31, 1993, the two governments had spent only
$281 million, that is just 34 per cent of the planned $820 million.
Quebec and Ottawa are equally bad in this case. The first has
spent only $126 million out of $380 million, that is 33 per cent
and the other, which is the federal government, has spent only
$155 million out of the planned $440 million, that is 35 per cent.
Montreal has so far paid dearly for the federal government's
lack of efficiency in matters of regional development.
[English]
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for his comments and his speech, and for the many
comments that he made about inter-regional solidarity and
co-operation between regions.
(1235 )
I ask the hon. member whether he feels that this same kind of
co-operation must exist between provinces, particularly
between Quebec and other parts of Canada, and that in fact the
Bloc is the very reason that this kind of co-operation does not
exist right now and that its philosophy and the way it wants to
handle the government is one of the reasons that the solidarity
that we need is not now there.
[Translation]
Mr. Daviault: Mr. Speaker, I think that we have wasted a
great deal of time talking about big national issues this morning
when we should be concentrating on regional development. It is
not in our best interests, in dealing with such an issue, to
provoke one another. I am not suggesting that the hon. member
is doing that, but we have heard this morning some remarks that
were not particularly edifying.
However, on that point, I do not think that we are a cause, but
rather a consequence. Imagine, after eight or nine years of
Conservative rule, after the GST, after the scandals, after all the
Conservative government inflicted upon us, Quebecers still
remembered 1982 and the Trudeau government and they did not
trust the Liberal Party. The Liberals keep talking about the red
book. Quebecers rejected the red book in the last election.
During the campaign, every single analyst in English Canada
seemed to take pleasure in saying that there would not even be
ten members of the Bloc in this House after the October election.
The people from Quebec have a very good memory and, in
that respect, some great measures have to be taken. In
committee, I had an opportunity to talk with the clerk of the
Privy Council, who told me about the need to strike a balance
after Charlottetown. There is no proposal on the table. Where is
that balance between the regions and the federal government?
The parliamentary secretary who got all worked up about
Quebec's independence a few moments ago-I do not want to
mention his name-has a vision of a united Canada. He is
entitled to his vision, which I respect, but that vision has been
rejected and continues to be rejected. How are we going to strike
a balance between English Canada, which thought that the
Charlottetown Accord gave Quebec too much power, and
Quebec, which thought that the offers on the table were nothing
but crumbs?
Mrs. Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais
(Madawaska-Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank
the Bloc member who agrees with me that regional development
programs, particularly the one for Atlantic Canada -which
benefits the Gaspé Peninsula to a certain extent-are not
hand-outs like the Reform member said, drawing heavy
applause from some Bloc members.
I would like to stress that, indeed, Canadians and Quebecers
have a good memory. As far as regional development policies
are concerned, I remember the time when I lived in the Quebec
North Shore area in the 1970s. It underwent a true industrial,
economic and social revolution with the help of a Liberal
government in Ottawa. I remember that vividly. But some
people have a very selective memory. They remember things
that may not have been really needed at the time, but they
seldom remember and praise good things that were done. This is
a case of selective memory.
(1240)
As concerns the remarks of the hon. member, I would like to
mention that, as the member for Madawaska-Victoria, New
Brunswick, I am not part of what he calls English Canada. Mr.
Speaker, there is no such thing as an English Canada and a
French Canada. There is one Canada from coast to coast, one
nation made up of founding peoples and immigrants, a nation of
which we are all extremely proud.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Ahuntsic has the
floor for the same period of time as the hon. member who just
spoke.
4757
Mr. Daviault: That is a lot, thank you. Listen, we are caught
in a confrontation dynamic. The time for negotiation is over.
The federal government as well as the sovereigntists want to
settle the question once and for all, they want to put the question
to Quebecers. I believe that it is fundamental that they do it. I
was among those Quebec nationalists who believed in the ``beau
risque'', the risk worth taking, who where criticized by people
like the parliamentary secretary-I know, I cannot say who has
now returned-but who were also criticized for their stand on
the Meech Lake Accord. An agreement was possible, as if it was
always-
Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais: What has that to do with my
comments? You are not answering what I said!
Mr. Daviault: No, but it does not matter.
An hon. member: No question was asked!
Mr. Daviault: No question was asked. Comments were made
on the Meech Lake Accord and the member who has a unitarian
view.
Canada is composed of regions. Quebec is a society made up
of all its citizens. In this society, a francophone nation has
developed and acquired an identity. These people call
themselves Québécois. There is a Quebec nation just as there is
an Acadian nation. It is very clear to me, and when I speak, it is
mostly for Quebecers.
My ancestor is of Italian origin, and his name was Davia. He
was a mercenary for the king of France. He liked this country,
and stayed. This country is mine. We were French Canadians.
We are now Quebecers. We tried to get an agreement, we really
did. Now the big question has to be put. The federal government
does not want to make any new proposal. Sovereigntists want to
take another road, and Quebecers will have to decide.
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont): Mr. Speaker, dear
colleagues, I am very happy today that my colleagues from the
Opposition have picked this day to discuss an issue that is very
dear to me, that is, of course, regional development and regional
development policies.
I want to tell you from the start that this issue is dear to me
because, now that I am the member for Outremont, I am
extremely proud to represent that riding which I cherish. I must
say that to sit as the member for Outremont, with all the history
of that riding, gives me, as they say in Quebec, a thrill and I feel
very proud.
However, I must emphasize that I am also from an area of
Quebec, more precisely La Malbaie, in the riding of Charlevoix,
which is far from the major centres. I must underline to the
Speaker that, being from that area, I became familiar with all the
problems of regional development and all that they entail.
Indeed, I want to tell you that one of the reasons why I joined the
Liberal Party was in fact because of its great openness towards
regional development policies.
You know, Mr. Speaker, Canada as such, and it is being said
regularly, because these days I have had the chance to travel
throughout Quebec, I must be travelling all over Quebec at least
once a month, these days, Canada as a whole is a huge cultural
patchwork, and we regularly say it loud and clear, but it is also,
if I may say so, a geographical patchwork.
(1245)
There often are regional disparities within the same region. It
is fortunate that Canada is a cultural and geographical mosaic. It
is for this reason that Canada is what it is. It is for this reason
that Canada is such an attractive counry. It is for this reason that
Canada shines everywhere in the world. It is for this reason that
so many people visit Canada.
I joined the Liberal Party because, since my early chilhood,
the Liberal Party has always symbolised this openness to what
we really are, essentially a great country which has to be united
and a great country whose regions must be respected.
Today, when you look at what is going on in the world, it is
clear that we are faced with globalization which of course
involves the whole issue of cultural and economic co-operation.
The Liberal government understood the key to the future for
us in Canada. The key to the future lies in the great principles of
co-operation. Since October 25, we have taken a very open
approach to consultation and co-operation. As far as I am
concerned, this is the key to the future and this is the approach
taken by the government.
When speaking of consultation and co-operation with
partners, we mean of course private enterprise. We also mean
the various levels of government. The Liberal government of
Mr. Chrétien understood that we had to be united in order to
build something. It put forward several principles, already
contained in the Martin budget, to improve and enhance
co-operation between federal, provincial and municipal
governments.
As you know, and I mentioned that earlier, the Infrastructure
Program is an eloquent example of that new policy and that new
philosophy. The program is also an outstanding success.
As you know, the idea of co-operation is not new to the
federal government and the Liberal Party in particular. As early
as 1974, governments began to implement what was called
general agreements on regional co-operation and development.
The same year, two of those agreements were successively
implemented in co-operation with the provinces and in
particular the one I represent, the province of Quebec. All those
initiatives were created to allow for an appropriate exchange of
information to save money but also, as was well acknowledged
and publicly known, to better serve the Canadians, because we
must not forget that the primary goal of any government is to
provide services. This is why our philosophy is based on
consultation, which makes it possible to better understand the
needs of each area.
4758
Therefore, we are trying to create harmony between the
various levels of government and I must say that we are also
trying to create harmony within our own system, the federal
system, and within our institutions. I would like to say that right
now Mr. Chrétien's government is making considerable
efforts-and efforts were made previously-to eliminate any
form of overlapping, first of all at the federal level. I must say
also that since 1974, a fantastic co-operation has emerged
between the provinces and the federal government which has led
to various side agreements in various areas that I will name.
For instance, there have been agreements between Quebec
and federal departments, and I am not referring to general
agreements including both governments in the broader sense,
but rather agreements at the departmental level, that is between
provincial and federal departments.
(1250)
The areas that have been affected, Mr. Speaker, are the
following ones. For example, we can talk about an industrial
agreement and side agreements on tourism, culture, forests,
minerals, agri-food, communications and fisheries,
transportation, science and technology.
I am proud to say that today, because it is the way to go.
Recently, the government showed once again that it is the way to
go. It showed that dialogue and believing in a country and in a
system can give rise to very interesting results for all regions in
Canada.
Recently, for instance, on April 18, an agreement called St.
Lawrence Vision 2000 Agreement was announced. That
agreement involves several departments at the federal level and
implies some co-operation with various levels of government.
The proposed agreement will cost $191 million and will be
based on protecting and cleaning up the St. Lawrence River,
which is an essential waterway for the economic development of
the eastern part of the country and also for the economic
development of Quebec.
Within the context of the St. Lawrence Vision 2000
Agreement, I would like to give you a list of the departments
involved at the federal and provincial levels. And then people
will argue that the system in which we live cannot work
properly.
Of course when you come to the House of Commons with the
defeatist attitude that the present system does not work, you
cannot build anything on that premise. I wonder how you could
build an independent Quebec with people whose outlook is so
pessimistic.
To get back to federal-provincial co-operation, the St.
Lawrence Vision 2000 Agreement involved the following
departments and agencies: at the federal level, Environment
Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Health and Welfare
Canada, Agricultural and Agri-Food Canada, Canadian
Heritage, the Federal Office of Regional Development; and, at
the provincial level, in Quebec, Environment and Wildlife,
Health, Social Services, Agriculture, Fisheries, Food and
Municipal Affairs.
As you know, since the Chrétien government came to power,
one of its policies has been to help small business. With the
advent of globalization, small businesses must adjust to the new
international focus on markets. If you look around, not just in
the province of Quebec but all over Canada, and if you go and
talk to owners of small businesses in their communities, as I did
in recent months, you will see that they realize their future will
depend on consultation and co-operation with various sectors in
the community and with various levels of government. As many
business owners will tell you, they really have no choice.
They have no choice because today, the changes taking place
in the economy, technology and business, in the broadest sense
of the word, are occurring at an incredible rate. Today,
networking is not a luxury but a necessity in order to exchange
information and become more competitive and more efficient.
Small businesses in Canada have the right attitude, an attitude
that is in line with what the present government would like to
see, since it reflects the international context of our markets. In
the eighties, Canada signed a free trade agreement with the
United States. Not long ago, this government signed a North
American Free Trade Agreement.
(1255)
We also know that as a result of GATT, the economy is
becoming increasingly globalized, because the terms of this
agreement provide for eliminating all forms of tariff barriers.
Incidentally, I read some books by a number of politicians in
Quebec not long ago, and according to them-this is not a direct
quote because I do not have the text in front of me-because of
globalization, the way of future might be a world federation, an
international federation that would eventually unite all
countries.
We in the federal government have understood the need to
look ahead and consider the broader perspective. One of the
federal government's current instruments to help the regions,
and one of which I am particularly proud and which is headed by
the Minister of Finance, the Hon. Paul Martin, is the Federal
Office of Regional Development for Quebec, an instrument that
we as a government use to implement what we call regional
development policies.
There is a connection with small business, because as you
know, not long ago, the Minister of Finance made a speech, and
a very good one, on the new philosophy of the Federal Office of
Regional Development for Quebec, and he clearly indicated that
we would put the emphasis on small business. And why should
we stress small business in our regional development policies?
For the simple reason that since the end of the seventies,
4759
companies with fewer than 100 employees are those that
benefited from government assistance and that generated 2.3
million jobs in Canada, that is 87 per cent of the total number of
jobs created in this country. It does not take a genius to realize
that adequate knowledge of the community and support for
small business are the two pillars of regional development.
I am proud of this initiative to support small business,
because small businesses always have closer ties with the
community, and history has shown they are also better able to
weather a recession. And a small business is usually more loyal
to its employees. These are businesses which, as they diversify,
will provide Quebec and Canada with a reliable economic
infrastructure that will make it possible for us to think globally.
Not long ago, we went ahead, as we said we would during the
election campaign and as Mr. Martin explained on numerous
occasions, we went ahead with pre-budget consultations, a very
open process aimed at implementing the government's new
philosophy on co-operation and consultation. Its purpose was to
ask the public what it expected of the government generally in
terms of budgetary policy.
One fact to clearly emerge from this consultation process is
that people really do want us to provide assistance to the
regions. However, the government did receive one very clear
message, namely that the public no longer wants it to intervene
on a massive scale and to pour large sums of money, often
unwisely, into useless programs which fall by the wayside after
a certain period of time.
Proud of this consultative process, the minister has given a
new mandate to the FORDQ for which he is responsible and has
retargeted this office's objectives. The end result is that the
regional development policy advocated by the FORDQ is
tailored to the people's demands. Clearly it is much more
focused and as such, it will be much more effective.
(1300)
Among other things, the FORDQ will focus on innovative
actions such as technology transfers, design, formative regional
projects, in particular, I might add, in the field of tourism.
Efforts will be made to provide assistance to businesses to help
them compete internationally and to get plugged in to the
information highway.
Therefore, provided consultation takes place and the
government is positive and open, we can succeed. Canada is
currently making preparations to confront the markets of the
21st century. I find it odd to see members of the Bloc draw
comparisons which are often weak between Canada and the
European Economic Community.
For example, Mr. Bouchard mentioned that a sovereign
Quebec would use the US dollar just as the Europeans do. That is
a very lame comparison indeed. For starters, the European
Economic Community is an economic union which seeks to
develop political ties. We are one step ahead of the game since
we already have these political ties. However, the European
economic union will use a common currency, the ECU, not the
currency of one of the 12 member countries, unlike what Mr.
Bouchard was suggesting when he said Quebec would use the
US dollar, the currency of one of the countries in North America,
as if Quebecers were a colonized people.
I will not deny that the current system is not perfect, but with
some consultation and some fine-tuning, we can effectively
build a competitive Canada and Quebec for the future. However,
if we embrace the view of the members of the official
opposition, we will be looking ahead to constitutional debates
which, even after a future vote on Quebec's separation, could
drag on for five or ten years. This is valuable time. Important
technological changes are taking place and we must not miss the
boat.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, I was amazed to hear the hon. member for Outremont
mention, at the very end of his remarks, that the European
Community was taking the same road as Canada. I find that
quite extraordinary, since the great strength of the European
Economic Community lies in the fact it is made up of sovereign
states.
I would like the leader of the government, the Prime
Minister-because this is certainly not something the hon.
member for Outremont would do-to go before the French
National Assembly and tell the people of France that they are
taking the same road as Canada and that, ten years from now,
France will no longer be a sovereign state. I would like to see the
Prime Minister stand in front of the Bundestag, in Berlin, and
tell the Germans that their country is on the way to losing its
sovereign status. I would like to see him do the same thing in
Westminster. It is really double talk. I imagine that the Prime
Minister would be advised against making such a speech.
Perhaps he would come to that conclusion himself.
Let us take a look at what serious international figures have to
say, people like Mr. Boutros Boutros-Ghali, the Secretary
General of the United Nations, who told us in Montreal that
there are two main tendencies in the world today: one toward
nations and peoples forming into countries and the other toward
the same countries getting together to form larger economic
entities. That is what is happening in Quebec and what the
Liberals were objecting to during the debate on free trade. They
ran the 1988 election on opposing free trade in the name of
Canadian nationalism. All is very well to talk about nationalism
in reference to Canada, but in reference to Quebec, it becomes a
mortal sin. I find this double talk rather strange.
4760
(1305)
These people-even the Liberal members of the National
Assembly in Quebec City, and in their case it is
shameful-refuse to recognize Quebec as a nation. And yet,
they are sitting in the Quebec National Assembly. As far as I
know, national, as in National Assembly, refers to a nation. If
Quebec were not not a nation, but a society, then it would have
been called the Societal Assembly!
This name was voted by a Premier who headed the Union
nationale-National Union. So, I would like to know what the
hon. member for Outremont is saying exactly. Is Quebec
currently a nation within the Canadian federal system or is it not
a nation?
If not, will he commit to advise his Liberal colleagues in
Quebec City to change the name of the Quebec National
Assembly? It is sheer nonsense to call it that if Quebec is not a
nation! I would like him to comment on that.
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would just like to
stress how sorry I am to hear opposition members say that, as
members from Quebec, we should be ashamed of saying this or
that just because they think we do not share their philosophy. I
can tell you right off the bat, Mr. Speaker, that, as a Quebecer
and a young politician from the new generation, I have always
been proud to respect the opinion of my political opponents
because even if I do not agree with their philosophy, some of
their ideas can certainly result in things that could benefit all of
Quebec and all of Canada.
The only thing I ask in return from the opposition party is to
respect my philosophy which, of course, puts Quebec within
Canada.
Having said that, before I come to the national issue, the hon.
member tried to make fun of my position on the European
Economic Community. I want to tell you that I studied the EEC
for a year in England and if I may-you can thank me if you
want-it is obvious to everyone that the 12 members of the
EEC-that number may soon go up to 16-are sovereign
countries linked by an economic union with the four categories
of movement; it is an open secret.
However, what I was saying-and I cannot comprehend why
the hon. member does not understand-is that they tried,
especially during the Gulf War, to establish non-economic links
between themselves to build the Europe of tomorrow.
Whether we are talking about the ECU or the collective
foreign policy they put to the test during the Gulf War, I think it
is a step beyond the economic links. In essence, what I am now
saying is that our economic links within Canada will soon be
much better because, by the end of June, we will have an
agreement with the federal government and all the other
provinces on interprovincial economic trade.
I hope this will lead to freedom of action in the four existing
categories of movement. In Canada, we also have political ties
provided for in the Canadian Constitution and I say that there is
a certain similarity between the two. Europe is building a union
which may eventually lead to shared political sovereignty, we
do not know.
Now Canada, which has had a very rewarding union, is
essentially refining the internal ties. You know, we live in a
framework that has proven itself. We have experience with
regional development policy so that we can sit down and set
appropriate policies for tomorrow, whereas the opposition party
talks about separation and sovereignty and anything you want,
but when the time comes to say clearly what a sovereign Quebec
would be, we run into a Berlin wall; that is, we get no answer
because they do not know themselves what a sovereign Quebec
would be-it is total uncertainty. That is why I feel somewhat
humiliated as a Quebecer when I see Lucien Bouchard cross the
Atlantic to ask the French government for its blessing on
separation, Mr. Speaker, even before the people of Quebec have
voted in the next election and before the plan for separation has
been explained to them and they have given an answer in a
referendum, which is now very hypothetical.
(1310)
I feel rather colonized, even though it is a word that
disappeared from our vocabulary in the 1960s, when Lesage was
in power. I feel rather colonized when I see Lucien Bouchard go
to see the French and treat Quebecers like sheep and ask the
French government for its blessing for a separate Quebec.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, I listened
to the hon. member for Outremont and I heard him refer to a new
generation of politicians. However, I must say that, based on his
answers, he looks a lot more like an old traditional politician.
I have another question for him, but first I want to make a
comment. I have other questions on regional development, but I
want to go back to a remark made by the hon. member.
Mr. Duceppe: They are sovereign states.
Mr. Brien: When the hon. member discusses an hypothetical
issue and refers to the possibility of a sovereign Quebec and to
Europe, he must not forget, as the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie just pointed out, that these are all
sovereign states.
As for us, we want the Quebec of tomorrow to be open to the
world and to be a free trader. Who is inward-looking? The hon.
member is the one who alluded to a Berlin wall and who is
saying that Canadians will refuse to be free trade partners with
4761
Quebec. It is not Quebecers who are making these comments; it
is members opposite who represent the rest of Canada.
I ask the hon. member: As a young Quebec MP representing
Outremont and a new generation, is he young or old? Are his
ideas young or old? This is what is important. Personally, as a
young person, I am deeply hurt by his comments, because what I
hear from people of my generation has nothing to do with these
very partisan remarks. I ask the hon. member: In his opinion, is
Quebec a nation? I ask him to give a clear answer and not digress
from the issue. The question is very clear to those listening to us.
Does the hon. member feel, as a Quebec MP representing the
riding of Outremont in Montreal, that Quebec is a nation?
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, first of all, members opposite are
once again hurling insults, calling me an old style politician. At
thirty-one, that is hardly the case. I think my view of the
situation is entirely up to date. Nevertheless, I respect the views
of the Bloc Quebecois, even if its members do not respect mine.
That being said, I will answer the nation question when the
Bloc Quebecois has-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Cauchon: Let me finish. When the Bloc
Quebecois-Remember, I am the member for Outremont and as
a member from Quebec, I am very concerned about the
hypothetical referendum debate they are trying to launch
prematurely, a debate that does not respect the views of the
entire population of Quebec.
I will answer this question as soon as they explain what they
mean by separation. And as soon as they decide what they want
to call it: separation, sovereignty, sovereignty association. As
soon as they decide to be intellectually honest with the people of
Quebec, whom I represent, we can talk about serious matters. In
any case, answering this particular question might take as long
as an hour, something like Cyrano de Bergerac!
The Deputy Speaker: I see another member who wants to ask
a question. Is there unanimous consent for extending this
period? I asked a question. Is there unanimous consent for
extending this period?
(1315)
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: We will resume debate. Unfortunately,
the time for questions and comments has expired. The hon.
member for Trois-Rivières, on debate.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to take part in this debate which, understandably,
arouses passions. First of all, I would like to congratulate my
colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup for his motion
which reads:
That this House condemn the federal government's ineffective regional
development interventions, which create overlappings and inconsistencies,
resulting in an administrative chaos that hampers regional economic growth.
As we have seen, the debate can easily become acrimonious
because it illustrates perfectly the problems of the federal
system. As I said, it arouses passions because it reveals the
intrinsic adversarial elements associated with the operations of
two governments in the same field. Frankly, what interests us in
regional development is the way the federal is involved in
Quebec. We have conflicting interests; the Quebec government
requests overall control of programs because it is responsible
for development within its territory, while the federal
government justifies its involvement by saying that one of its
roles is to lessen regional disparities and uses its spending
power, at times improperly.
It intervenes in various ways in regional development,
through institutions which duplicate the work of similar Quebec
institutions, thereby creating duplications, frictions, waste and
confusion. I can give you a few examples.
The Federal Office of Regional Development is in direct
competition with the regional secretariat for development and
the regional development councils which have a program called
business assistance fund. There is competition between the two
institutions which have the same clients.
In the area of technological development, the National
Research Council, which targets small businesses, is in
competition with the Quebec department of industry and trade
and its program Innovation PME. So we have two structures and
two budgets and we therefore expend twice the energy.
In the area of training seminars for small businesses we have
on the one hand the Federal Business Development Bank and on
the other the Quebec department of industry. These are two
structures which invite the same persons to the same kind of
courses.
Then, there is the well-known area of vocational training.
Everybody in Quebec agrees that this area is a mess. On one side
we have the pretensions and the budgets of Employment and
Immigration, and on the other the Société québécoise de la
main-d'oeuvre, which has become an almost empty shell
because of the federal-provincial conflict in the area of
vocational training.
In a blatant disregard for the federal government, there is in
Quebec a strong consensus among employers and employees,
and all the parties involved, both at the public and para-public
levels, to make vocational training the exclusive jurisdiction of
the province.
As long as we remain part of it, we would like the federal
structure to abolish all its training programs and to transfer their
budgets to Quebec or, at the very least, to put these programs at
the disposal of the Quebec structure already in place in every
region.
4762
I should add that when we talk about regional development,
we do not mean just administrative structures or
federal-provincial agreements.
(1320)
It is also something much larger, something which includes
activities as well as institutions having, through their operation,
a direct influence on regional development.
There are sectors which interest me particularly. The whole
area of industrial conversion has an influence on regional
development. The same applies to transportation, all the
transportation policies-and I could give you in a moment some
examples which affect directly my riding of
Trois-Rivières-whether they apply to marine, air or rail
transportation.
There are direct implications for regional development. We
will see that recent decisions and government inaction have also
had a direct impact on regional development.
When it comes to industrial conversion, it is very sad, not to
say deplorable, to see, week after week, the lack of political will
on the part of the present Liberal government. The
parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry, who is
directly concerned, is here. He can hear me. He knows what our
position is in this matter.
It is an issue of the highest priority, and yet the minister seems
to want to wash his hands of it. The situation is critical. Since
1987, in Quebec alone, 11,000 high-tech jobs have been lost.
We cannot repeat it enough, it is totally unacceptable. It is
nothing short of a large scale brain drain. People who deserve to
work and should work, are no longer needed. The resulting
higher unemployment is going to drive them away. The
government must act now.
It cannot stand on the side line as it is doing now, claiming
that it is waiting for boards of directors to submit their business
plans to it. It must summon them, act as a catalyst, shame them
in the public interest and ask them what they intend to do, given
the geopolitical changes which are sweeping the world, and the
fact that all over the western world, defence budgets are being
cut. What does the private sector intend to do? We believe that it
is up to the government to find out.
I forgot to mention that as far as R & D is concerned, the
federal government has a leading role to play in terms of
regional development. It must ensure that R & D funding is
evenly distributed throughout Quebec, especially among
university research centres and researchers. This will attract
scientists who will improve the quality of life of people in each
region and contribute to a richer and more articulate community
life.
I will now raise the issue of transportation, starting with water
transport. It is common knowledge that the federal Department
of Transport is entertaining serious thoughts about privatizing
all Coast Guard operations in the St. Lawrence or even about
making shipowners pick up the tab for Coast Guard services in
the near future.
If ever shipowners were required to pay for these services, it
is not difficult to imagine the impact such a decision would have
on all St. Lawrence ports, especially the port of Trois-Rivières.
What is to become of Quebec ports and how will be they fare
compared to ports where there is no Coast Guard, with ports in
Eastern Canada or with U.S. ports?
If ever this decision was carried out, we would no longer be
talking about regional development, but rather about regional
anti-development. This decision could have some serious
repercussions and all stakeholders must be very vigilant and
oppose any such action.
With respect to air transportation, another issue which
directly concerns my riding of Trois-Rivières in which a
regional airport is located, Transport Canada's policy has been
to divest itself of its airport assets. In a riding like my own, this
issue has been under consideration for ten years. During the
Liberal Trudeau era, the question was being reviewed and the
repercussions are still being weighed today. Yet, a regional
corporation is willing to take over the running of the airport and
it is waiting for the two levels of government, federal and
provincial, to agree on the fate of this facility. In the meantime,
equipment is not being properly maintained and the situation is
extremely dangerous.
(1325)
I have been told that the electrical wiring is outdated and that
the cracks are getting bigger every year. This could prove
hazardous to the member for Saint-Maurice who occasionally
flies in to visit his constituents and stops by in my riding. In any
case, the Minister of Transport would simply be showing some
common sense by taking steps to ensure that the Trois-Rivières
airport is in good condition.
Lastly, with respect to rail transportation, we sense that there
is no political will on the part of the government to proceed with
the high-speed train project. The conditions in our regions,
including mine where the unemployment rate stands at 12.2 per
cent, a ridiculously high level for 1994, are unacceptable. This
illustrates the complexity of the federal system and the lack of
political will. It also shows how the federal government's focus
is more on centralization and maintaining a unitarian system.
Quebecers will have to choose. Either they will choose to remain
a province much like any other province, smaller and more
regionalized than ever before within the post-referendum,
unitarian Canada of the future, or they will choose to become the
masters of their own destiny and become a sovereign nation, as
others before them have done.
4763
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I would say to the member for
Trois-Riviéres that I have enjoyed working with him in the last
three months in the industry committee where on behalf of all
the small businessmen and women of this country, every region
of Canada, we have worked hard as a team trying to access
capital for small and medium size business.
I believe it was an example where the member for
Trois-Riviéres was not just thinking of the people in his riding
or his province, but working on behalf of all Canadian small
businessmen and women.
When I stand in the House today and say that I am totally
opposed to separating this country and destroying this country,
it is absolutely nothing personal. My difference of opinion is
nothing personal with the member.
I believe this debate today is about spending power: Who has
the spending power and who speaks for Canada in Quebec.
I have always believed that the best way to serve the
disadvantaged regions was by having a strong national
government so that from time to time when regions which were
creating more wealth than others needed that wealth to be
shared, this Chamber would say through budget and public
policy: ``Listen, B.C., Alberta and Ontario, you are doing better
right now so we must share that with either Atlantic Canada or
share it with Quebec''. That has been the history and that has
been the practice.
Whenever we worked as a unit in the House of Commons with
a strong national government, especially under Prime Minister
Pierre Trudeau, the people of Quebec prospered.
Does the member for Trois-Riviéres not believe that the
decentralized Government of Canada instrument FORD-Q
working on the ground in Quebec is the best hope for looking
after some of those very special needs that the member cited in
his speech today?
[Translation]
Mr. Rocheleau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by thanking
my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood for his nice
comments on my role on the committee but it shows a little my
mentality and probably that of many of my colleagues with
respect to the relations that will have to be maintained in the
future between two sovereign peoples. I think that the courteous
and the civil thing to do would be to deal with each other on an
equal footing without hate or prejudice. That is what I am used
to. The quality and experience of the membership of the
committee my colleague sits on also helped.
(1330)
In response to the question, I think that with every passing
year it becomes more obvious that this country has reached a
dead end. What I have noticed in recent weeks, perhaps during
the opposition leader's international travels, is that English
Canadians seem to have discovered the sovereigntist movement,
as though it started with Mr. Parizeau, leader of the Opposition
in Quebec, and the member for Lac-Saint-Jean, Leader of the
Opposition in this House. In fact, the sovereigntist movement
has been around in Quebec since Confederation and as you
know, there was no referendum before Quebec became a
Canadian province. If I remember correctly, it passed by one
vote among the Quebec representatives here in Canada's
Parliament.
What strikes me is that we may have to question the role of the
media in the evolution of the debate. Incidentally, 30 years ago
here in Ottawa, there was the Laurendeau-Dunton Royal
Commission.
Mr. Mills: Mr. Trudeau was not a separatist.
Mr. Rocheleau: No, I am talking about the sovereigntist
movement that has been evolving for the past 30 years. I myself
have been a sovereigntist since 1961. I was a member of the
Rassemblement pour l'indépendance nationale, or union for
national independence. The Laurendeau-Dunton report, which
referred to the two solitudes, was published in 1963. We are not
inventing anything, Mr. Speaker.
Four other royal commissions examined the patient and all
came to more or less lame conclusions that promoted the growth
of the sovereigntist movement. Why? Because first of all, we are
a nation and now that we are better educated, we want to become
a member of the United Nations. On the other hand, in this
Canada we are condemned to always remain a minority if we
stay in Confederation.
So, in my opinion as a long-time sovereigntist, these are the
two main points underlying all our arguments. The sovereigntist
movement is not, as has recently been suggested on
French-language television, ``a burst of pressure from the
Quebec people'' but, on the contrary, a fire that has been stoked
up for a long time. The ashes are smoldering, the fire is hot, and
Quebecers will soon decide on their future in a democratic
fashion, Mr. Speaker.
An hon. member: That is good.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise on this Official Opposition day to speak on
regional development. My remarks will focus on the Laurentian
region, a major part of which is in my riding.
4764
The situation faced by individuals in my region is very
serious. In April 1994, the unemployment rate was 16.6 per cent.
Add to that all employable welfare recipients who are out of
work and this rate easily rises to 30 something per cent. One
person out of three is out of work.
In Saint-Jérôme, a major regional center, the average annual
income of renting households was $22,835, while the provincial
average was $28,136. That is $5,500 less. In Saint-Jérôme, one
household out of four spends over 30 per cent of its income on
housing. Things are even worse for 20 per cent of these, or 1,340
households, since 50 per cent of their income has to be used on
housing. Most of these households, or 66 per cent, are lead by
single mothers.
(1335)
These figures are telling. They speak volumes about the
conditions that cause an escalation in poverty, hunger and health
problems. These problems are increasingly palpable as they set
in and take on proportions never seen before.
This account of the situation of the people in my region
clearly shows a declining economy. For several years now, there
has been no growth. We are justified in looking seriously into
the whole issue of regional development, because, as we can see,
it clearly does not meet its primary goal, which is to enable
people to live comfortably in their regions.
The federal government was not successful in developing my
region. The regional economic base is crumbling in spite of
massive injection of money under general agreements. The
social fabric is disintegrating, rural migration is continuing and
young people are the first to leave their regions.
Developed regions, major centres, are expanding at the
expense of regional resources. The problem can be readily
identified on site and all those concerned are unanimous in
denouncing the cause.
The interference of the federal government in the
development of my region is causing horrendous administrative
chaos, costly duplication and inconsistency. Development,
which entails consultation, joint action and harmonization, is
not designed by the federal government to accommodate these
notions.
On the contrary, the government moves in and acts as if it
owned the place. It does not examine the situation. It does not
consult people. It does not have any regard for what has been
accomplished so far. Even worse, they are incoherent and
illogical in their regional development policies.
I have a specific example for you. In my riding, in a small
municipality, the federal government, through the Federal
Office of Regional Development, FORD, asked hoteliers and
innkeepers to come up with plans to renovate their outdated and
run-down facilities and to harmonize them with the
development of a major private ski resort then under way. The
hoteliers and innkeepers produced these projects and plans in
the expectation of federal financial support under APDA, the
Assistance Program for Designated Areas.
These people did their homework seriously. The first step was
taken; it only remains to carry out the projects. Unfortunately,
they are still waiting and uncertain, since there is no money for
this program. What good planning! What consistency! It is as if
you drew up plans for a house but stayed outside because you did
not have money to build it. These business people have been
sorely misled.
Now let us look at strategic development plans. All regions of
Quebec recently adopted such plans for themselves. They are
drawn up in concert with the RCMs, local stakeholders and
regional sectoral organizations. These plans are based on
consultation and co-operation. They were developed very
carefully, following a very thorough process to consult all local
and regional interest groups.
What disturbs many community stakeholders is the lack of
concern and of consideration for these plans shown by federal
agencies and departments. All federal officials in the regions
have these plans, but they never replied or bothered to compare
their point of view with what the regions want and consider
important and strategic for their development.
Even worse, since it did not consult the various interested
parties in the regions, the federal government, through FORD,
went so far as to have a firm of consultants draw up its own
regional plans and this firm used data provided by the producers
of the regional plans. This borders on fraud and is certainly a
shameful waste of public money.
It is another fine example of duplication and, even more, an
illustration of federal contempt and disrespect for Quebec's
regions and the interest groups that seriously spent so much
energy and money to come up with a clear vision for their
regional development.
The federal government must change its approach to regional
development. I am not talking here about section 25's or DEPs,
which can be termed the welfare approach to regional
development. I am talking about export assistance programs,
technological development support programs, the program to
help disadvantaged regions and so on. I am talking about
programs which have real impact on regional development and
are in no way linked to the regions' initiatives.
(1340)
I would like to make a digression about international markets
to indicate that the regions are already selling goods and
services on these markets. Given these facts, you have to agree
that the federal government should review its regional
development policies and harmonize its actions with those of
the regions
4765
which are already taking into consideration the new situation on
the world market.
In matters of regional development, the federal government's
record is far from brilliant. I think they should go back to the
drawing board and fast. For the taxpayers, it is sad to see how the
government is wasting their money.
Harmonious regional development requires more consistency
in the actions of all levels of government. Given its inefficiency
in this area, the best thing the federal government could do is to
withdraw from this jurisdiction, as all social and economic
experts have asked him to do, and to transfer to the province of
Quebec all the funds allocated to the economic development
programs which have some regional impact.
Of course, a sovereign Quebec would resolve this issue.
[English]
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North): Mr. Speaker, I
was following the remarks made by the hon. member and she
demonstrated that there are no good and effective
federal-regional development programs.
I was looking forward to examples from her province that
would benefit the federal government so those could be
implemented in all regions.
I wonder if the hon. member would be good enough to give us
some examples of what the government in her province
implemented for regional development within the province of
Quebec.
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Speaker, I just gave an example from my
riding, but throughout Quebec and Canada there are several such
examples of overlapping and duplication. The hon. member
could probably provide examples from his own riding.
I will not give him any additional example, but I do know that,
particularly in my region and in Quebec, there are enormous
problems. The FORD is not doing what it should, while Quebec
is doing its job. I am sure that if the hon. member checks, he will
find similar problems in his region.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member's speech is in perfect agreement with
the findings of a gallup poll to the effect that 82 per cent of
Quebecers feel the Liberals are not managing the economy
efficiently; 60 per cent of British Columbians think the same, as
well as 52 per cent of Maritimers, 49 per cent of Westerners and
48 per cent of Ontarians.
This poll shows that the farther they live from the national
capital, the further you are from Ottawa, the more unsatisfied
people are. Does the hon. member not see this as a confirmation
that government programs for regional development, not only in
Quebec but also in the Maritimes and in the West, absolutely do
not meet the specific needs of these regions, and that these
national programs are not adapted to any region of the country?
Mrs. Guay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. These programs obviously do
not work, since the needs of each region are different. Where I
come from, there are associations and groups conducting
economic impact and regional development studies specifically
for our region. However, these studies are not taken seriously.
Valuable work is done at these conferences and meetings.
Sometimes, it takes two, three, four or five months to do a
serious study.
(1345)
Studies are done, but the federal government ignores them.
The FORD does not work with us at all regarding these issues.
We have always had problems. Even members of Parliament, try
to get information from that office, but nothing happens.
Everything is on hold. It goes without saying that regions must
be involved in regional development. We are tired of seeing
young people leave our regions and move to large urban centres
because we have no jobs for them.
In Quebec, we have a very good structure to develop our
regions; consequently, if we have our own development tools
and if we can look after our own regional development, we will
certainly do very well. However, in the meantime, and as long as
the federal government tries to control and centralize everything
and does not let the regions decide anything, we will
unfortunately live in poverty as is the case now.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to
participate in the debate today because I believe that this debate
is really about who speaks for Canada.
I do not believe that we will ever resolve the debate with the
Bloc Quebecois because it does not believe in Canada. It is
separatist. It will not recognize any federal presence,
Government of Canada presence, in the province of Quebec. As
long as it has that position of trying to destroy Canada then this
debate is not going to go very far.
The fact of the matter is that we are a national government
here in Ottawa but we are supervising one of the most
decentralized national governments in the world. Many
members of Parliament today gave very specific examples.
We have a decentralized instrument in Atlantic Canada called
the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency which is a
Government of Canada instrument on the ground working with
the
4766
provinces and the municipalities. That unit is very sensitive to
the diverse needs of Atlantic Canada.
As we become more and more dependent on the new economy
and the new technologies, the Government of Canada presence
is there to support those new emerging small and medium sized
businesses. That instrument is in place.
In western Canada we have the western Canada
diversification fund which is also a decentralized Government
of Canada instrument working on the ground in every province
in western Canada trying to be ultra sensitive to the needs of not
just the region but of every province in the western region.
In the province of Ontario we have FedNor, an instrument in
northern Ontario which is very sensitive because we are talking
about industries which have very difficult times because of
shipping distances and because we are going through a
conversion in the north. We are moving into new industries there
because our resource based industries can no longer sustain us.
However, the Government of Canada has a presence there. The
federal Government of Canada works with FedNor and with the
municipalities and the province of Ontario trying to be sensitive
to the needs of northern Ontario.
In the province of Quebec we have the Federal Office for
Regional Development called FORD-Q. There are hundreds of
examples of where FORD-Q is working in a decentralized way
in every region of the province of Quebec, trying to make sure
that the very issues of concern that the Bloc Quebecois is talking
about today are addressed.
(1350 )
The problem is that the Bloc Quebecois refuses to tell its
constituents that there is a Government of Canada presence
working on the ground in its region, getting policy direction
from the national government in Ottawa, on the ground
operating in Quebec in a very decentralized way. The fact of the
matter is the Bloc members will not recognize these
decentralized instruments because they are not interested in
building Canada. They are interested in destroying Canada.
The thing that is beginning to really bother me about the Bloc
Quebecois members is they now know that their separatist thrust
is destabilizing the economy of the country. As they destabilize
the economy of the country they are putting pressure on our
interest rates. That cost to the national treasury is a heck of a lot
more than some of the duplication examples that they gave here
today.
I would be the first person to admit that our system is not
perfect. There are examples, not just in Quebec but in every
region of this country, in which we can show that there might
have been some waste here or that there might have been a
duplication there. That is no excuse for giving up on Canada.
That is no excuse for saying I want to separate from Canada. If
they really believe in putting people back to work in their
constituencies the same way that we in every other region of the
country want to put our people back to work, then they would
stop this notre chez nous.
Let us get real. We are dealing with the lives of millions of
people here. We are no longer dealing simply with the lives of
the people in the province of Quebec. We are dealing with the
lives and the jobs of people from coast to coast in this country.
This separatist let us kill Canada approach is really not in the
best interests.
They laugh. This is a member of Parliament who served for 10
years in the Mulroney government, an ex-Mulroneyite sitting
now with the Bloc. Their leader, another ex-Mulroneyite, is an
incredible example.
Some hon. members: Shame.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, it is a
very sad day for our country when people come to this
boardroom not to build it, not to improve and not to look out for
the unemployed in their ridings, but they know because they are
not stupid people-you do not get elected here by being
stupid-that this destabilizing talk that they are going through
right now is costing jobs right across the country. It is
destabilizing our economy.
When they talk about regional and economic development
there is not a province in Canada that has had the benefit of the
national treasury like the province of Quebec.
Mr. Plamondon: It is our money.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): It is not your money.
An hon. member: It is Canadian money.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, the Bloc
Quebecois always comes up with this line that it is its money. It
is not; the Minister of Finance announced in January under the
equalization entitlements a further $70 billion going to Quebec
from Ontario, B.C. and Alberta. It just came off $60 billion from
the last five years.
(1355 )
Those members do not tell their constituents that between the
last five and the next five years from the provinces of British
Columbia, Alberta and Ontario we have transferred $110
billion. Almost one-third of the national debt is because of the
province of Quebec equalization entitlements.
We do not resent that because that is part of our constitutional
responsibility. What really bothers me is that in spite of our
living up to our responsibilities in Confederation these people
still want to come to this national Parliament and try to destroy
the country. Canadians have lost patience with the Bloc
Quebecois and I believe that eventually even in the province of
Quebec there will be many people who will say that if they
reflect over
4767
history and talk about caring and sharing, Canada has really
been a good package for the people of Quebec.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, it is not
as if we are standing on this side of the House saying that we
have a perfect system but it is very tough to work with an
opposition that really does not have any intention to
constructively criticize or improve the fabric of Canada. It sits
there day after day working away at trying to destroy the fabric
of Canada.
I believe that in the very near future it will probably be living
up to its leader's commitment that if it loses in the provincial
election its members will all be resigning.
The debate today is really not about our regional development
programs and their effectiveness because we have regional
development programs in every region of this country. They are
working. They can always be improved.
The debate today is really about who speaks for Canada and
the Bloc Quebecois really has always had a resentment for the
Government of Canada presence in the province of Quebec.
I believe that most Quebecers will realize when they look at
the contributions of Health and Welfare Canada,
Communications Canada, Industry Canada, Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada, when they look at all the money that has
been poured into Hydro Quebec to help develop James Bay,
when they look at all the money that has been put into training
programs, when they look at the fact they received $1 billion
more in the last year just in terms of unemployment insurance
and trading entitlements, I believe-
Mr. Plamondon: We want jobs, jobs, jobs.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): This traitor to Brian
Mulroney talks about jobs. Do you know how you get jobs? You
get jobs by trying to build this country, not by trying to destroy
it. That is how you do it.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, the
members opposite talk about jobs. They are not fooling the
people of Quebec. I have a tough time saying Her Majesty's
Loyal Opposition. It is an oxymoron with this crowd. Her
Majesty's disloyal opposition is what they should be called.
When you think about the fact that these people are parading
around the world-
[Translation]
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements by Members
pursuant to Standing Order 31.
4767
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to congratulate the approximately 100 students who
participated in the National Student Commonwealth Forum in
Ottawa on May 13 of this year.
The delegates from across Canada gathered to express their
knowledge and views about issues facing Canada and the world.
Miss Julie Richard lives in the riding of our colleague from
Ottawa South. Representing Sri Lanka, she received the award
for the most outstanding delegate. Mr. Sachit Mehra of
Winnipeg, representing Antigua and Barbuda, received an
award for his exceptional performance. The best delegation was
that of Singapore, represented by Benjamin Thwaites and Ryan
Lawlor of St. Andrew's College in Toronto.
Forums such as this encourage Canadian youth to learn about
different cultures and countries, international issues and the role
that Canada plays in the world.
I congratulate all delegates and the volunteer forum planning
committee for a job well done.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Transport has announced he will implement the $100 million cut
in VIA Rail's operating budget proposed by the previous
Conservative government. This cutback will cause a reduction
in services to remote areas, possibly including the
Jonquière-Montreal line.
This service, which connects my region to Quebec's major
economic centres, is vital to the development and quality of life
of the region.
In my opinion, the government should abide by the policy
drafted by the Liberal Caucus in November 1989 and declare a
one-year moratorium on any decision affecting VIA Rail, in
order to allow for public hearings.
However, the minister has refused to consider public
consultations. It is another indication that when they were in the
opposition, the Liberals were far better-intentioned than they
are now as the governing party.
4768
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I have
just spoken to Chuck Cadman whose son Jesse was senselessly
murdered by a young offender for his baseball cap in a Fraser
Valley community a couple of years ago.
Chuck, who founded a group called CRY-Crime,
Responsibility and Youth-is disappointed with the Liberal
attempt at reforming the Young Offenders Act. His group's
numerous recommendations have turned into a cry in the dark.
Yet the justice minister claims he is listening to Canadians.
This government will soon see thousands of letters coming to
the justice minister from all across this country, all crying out
for stronger action on young offenders.
We have just found out that a violent repeat young offender
has escaped from a youth detention centre by melting through a
Plexiglas barrier with a soldering gun. The young offender who
sliced his way to freedom was very innovative. We need equally
innovative laws to keep up to these people, and today's half way
measures do not cut it.
How many more innocent people have to die before the justice
minister proves to Canadians he can actually hear their cries in
the dark?
* * *
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West): Mr. Speaker, on Monday
the Secretary of State for the Status of Women announced the
details of the government's plans to consult with Canadians
about the taxation of child support payments.
In the past few weeks I have received many letters from my
constituents wanting to see the present system changed. I would
like to take this opportunity to urge the people in my riding to
share their views with the government.
This government has prepared discussion points for people to
read and they can offer their views right on the document and fax
their presentation to Ottawa toll free.
Many parents face a daily battle to make ends meet because of
inadequate or late child support payments. This government is
concerned and wants to help. I encourage residents of St. John's
West to call my office and obtain a copy of the discussion paper
and share their concerns directly with this government.
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, when I read about
young women like Bonnie Fung who at 15 years of age is dealing
with the challenges of adolescence and those that face her as a
victim of lupus, and when I think about my 37-year old friend
who is at once raising a family of seven children and taking
chemotherapy to fight breast cancer, and when I talk to my aunt
and my grandmother who both in their later years are suffering
the pain and the disfigurement of osteoporosis, I know that we
have to do more to fight these diseases and others that
predominantly affect women.
We know that there has been a systemic bias against women in
our health care and our health research. That is why I am so glad
and look forward to the creation of a centre of excellence that
will focus on women's health and why I hope that when our
national health forum meets this summer the issue of women's
health will be on its agenda.
As a government and as a country we cannot accept the status
quo when it comes to Canadian women's health.
* * *
(1405 )
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr.
Speaker, the protection and conservation of our environment
require collaboration between all levels of government. We need
to streamline environmental regulatory processes and
harmonize federal and provincial policies and programs.
To this end yesterday in New Brunswick the federal
environment minister and her colleagues from the Atlantic
provinces entered into a federal-provincial framework
agreement for the environmental co-operation in Atlantic
Canada.
This agreement is the first of its kind in the environmental
field in terms of both its breadth and scope. It set out principles
to cover compliance with regulations, environmental
assessment, environmental monitoring and data management,
water programs and public awareness.
The agreement will lead to the elimination of overlap and
duplication of program delivery and provide a single window for
pursuing regulatory matters. It illustrates this government's
commitment to environmental protection and conservation and
to co-operation and harmonization with the provinces.
4769
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, I want to
take this opportunity to condemn the federal government's
ineptitude in the matter of regional development.
All regions in Quebec have been facing major problems for a
number of years. Despite the fact that we have a federalist
government in Quebec as well, quarrelling on regional
development has merely increased political tension, while the
economy of the regions suffers. This is reflected in the youth
unemployment rate in my region, which was 24 per cent last
year and led to migration to the larger urban centres.
I wish the Liberal government would stop telling us that all is
well and that federalism is the answer to all our problems.
Federalism has had plenty of time to prove itself, and it has
proved to be a failure.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, recently we agreed in this House that lacrosse would be
recognized as Canada's summer national sport.
This bill has now received royal assent. We have learned that
the Minister of Canadian Heritage is in possession of a report
which would eliminate all funding for lacrosse.
The minister's office assured me that this was not the official
position of the government. Then his parliamentary secretary
told us recently in this House that a decision on this will not be
forthcoming until late summer.
This puts the men's national lacrosse team in a desperate
situation. It hopes to compete in the world championships in
England this July but will not be able to unless recognition of its
status is forthcoming.
I call on the minister to make a decision immediately on our
national summer sport which will then allow our national team
to compete for Canada in the upcoming world championships.
* * *
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington): Mr.
Speaker, the federal government continues to recognize the
importance of our young people and is offering a number of
programs which will assist them as they prepare to meet the
challenges of the future.
Young people in Guelph-Wellington are concerned about
employment prospects and look to this government for
programs and ideas which will provide hope and opportunity.
I encourage our young women and men to believe in their
future. I also encourage them to make use of their talents
through volunteer experiences. Volunteering is an excellent
avenue to gain experience and to establish a network in the real
world of employment
At the same time there are a number of Canadians young and
old who can benefit from the dedication and spirit of our
volunteer activities. Young people should be encouraged to
make a difference, get involved and create a better future for
themselves while helping others.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, the
opposition may nor like this, but I would like to draw the
attention of this House to the recent association of the
governments of Canada and Quebec with Astraltech, to help this
company carry out a major revamping of its facilities.
A total investment of $9.5 million will create 30 new jobs and
keep 35 existing jobs in the Montreal region.
This project will help Astraltech, a world leader in the
communications sector, to relocate its facilities and acquire
high-tech equipment, while enhancing Montreal's reputation as
the hub of the industry's production for foreign markets.
This project demonstrates the level of excellence that can be
achieved when the private sector, the province and the
Government of Canada get together to meet the challenge of
keeping up with changing technologies. Another winner for
Quebec.
* * *
(1410 )
[English]
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina): Mr. Speaker, the Royal
Canadian Legion's decision to prohibit the wearing of religious
headwear in Legion halls shows a lack of respect and
understanding of Canada's new reality.
While I understand that the wearing of hats in Legion halls is
seen as a lack of respect for those who died in battle, I in no way
see religious head coverings as hats and therefore as
disrespectful.
I believe this to be an issue about the definition of Canada.
Our institutions have a responsibility, as is reflected here in this
4770
House, to guarantee that all Canadians are treated equally and
that no one is in any way discriminated against.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East): Mr. Speaker, despite a total
United Nations embargo against the putschist government of
Haiti, the military junta continues to defy international
pressures. It refuses to hand over power and allow for the return
of President Aristide and democracy.
In fact, the situation is worsening. Killers continue to
terrorize the population, the Tonton Macoutes have
re-established their reign of terror, international aid money is
being witheld and a new puppet president has been appointed. In
short, nothing has changed. How long does Canada intend to
wait for the total embargo to produce the intended results? How
many more dead, how much more suffering will we accept?
Canada must stand ready to take part in a more forceful
attempt if the situation does not change soon.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, amidst
all the talk of criminal justice reform in the Young Offenders Act
we often forget the victims who suffer at the hands of violence.
I would like to give a victim's impact statement today from a
young woman in my riding, Christine Angus, who was recently
beaten in broad daylight by two young offenders who demanded
her purse:
``I knew that crime amongst young offenders was getting out
of hand, but it was sort of on the sidelines and until this
happened to me I never realized that crime is so close to all of us.
I was on my way to work at 12.30 p.m., the noon hour, and two
guys came up behind me, grabbed me around my throat and said
they would hurt me if I did not give them my purse, then they
spun me around''. Christine was then beaten about the face and
head.
Her final comment was: ``Who will care for my emotional
state? I cannot sleep at night. I am afraid. Who is going to help
me with this?''.
Victims like Christine feel betrayed by a justice system that
lets them down time after time. Victims have special needs. Let
us recognize them and hold young offenders accountable.
[Translation]
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to add my voice to that of my colleagues
who, yesterday, paid tribute to the mother of Daniel and
Pierre-Marc Johnson, who passed away. Like two members
from the Bloc, I had the chance to work with Daniel and
Pierre-Marc Johnson in the Quebec National Assembly during
two terms.
I was also part of of Daniel Johnson's team during his first bid
for leadership. What is remarkable about the Johnson brothers is
that, confronted daily by issues they approached from opposite
ends of the political spectrum, they managed to keep strong and
constant fraternal ties. They are friends as well as brothers. This
comes from the strong family values passed on to them by their
parents. I offer my deepest sympathy to Daniel, Pierre-Marc
and their families.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Mr.
Speaker, in May 1993 the World Health Organization asked the
World Court to declare nuclear weapons illegal under
international law.
As a result the World Court asked all member states,
including Canada, to submit their positions by June 10, 1994.
I want to urge the government to make such a submission. At
this time there are six known nuclear weapon states and there are
15 other states that either have or are developing nuclear
weapons capacity. If this proliferation continues and nuclear
weapons are held by irresponsible leaders in the world, the
entire planet is in grave danger.
In 1995 the 25-year old non-proliferation treaty will come to
an end unless there is political will in the world to have it
continue and make it work. We have banned chemical weapons.
We should do the same with nuclear weapons.
I urge Canada to support this World Court project before the
June 10 deadline.
* * *
(1415 )
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pleasure that I rise in the House today in my capacity as
captain of the MPs basketball team to issue this statement
prepared by the diligent pages of the House of Commons. They
write:
4771
``A basketball game between members of Parliament and
House of Commons pages took place last night. This was a hard
fought and enthusiastically played match featuring high-flying
MPs from the government, the Bloc and the Reform Party as
well as pages from all regions of Canada.
The MPs relied on their team work, experience, and polished
moves while the pages used their talent, depth and youthfulness
to their advantage.
The outcome of this hotly-contested match was in doubt from
the beginning, but in the end the MPs were able to edge out the
pages by a slender margin.
The victory was sweet but as members of this House should
note this is no time to rest on your laurels as you will all be a year
older next season and will have to contend with a new group of
younger pages.
This game proved to be an excellent opportunity for members
and pages to work off some energy and to get to know each other
outside the House of Commons.
For those members who were unable to attend there is always
next year as this has now become an annual event.
Again thank you to all those who participated. It was a game
enjoyed by all.
Sincerely,
the Pages''
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, during the
election the Liberal Party promised to find ways to achieve tax
fairness. That was then. This is now.
I have here a flyer from Revenue Canada. There is a fire sale
on tax loopholes. Get them while you still can. To quote from the
flyer: ``Don't miss out. Take advantage of the $100,000 capital
gains exemption''.
This government's version of tax fairness is breaks for the
rich, do not touch the private family trusts. Their version of
abolish is hide and seek when it comes to the GST.
I call on the minister to explain to Canadians why he
continues to protect the wealthy when even the food in the
mouths of ordinary Canadians is not beyond his grasp.
4771
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Health. Because the
federal government refuses to take its responsibilities seriously,
the Red Cross is about to launch a large-scale operation to trace
thousands of carriers of the hepatitis C virus who were infected
as a result of blood transfusions. The Red Cross spokesperson
claimed, and rightly so, that a person who received a blood
transfusion had the right to know whether he had been exposed
to the hepatitis C virus.
How can the Minister of Health, who has refused to take her
responsibilities seriously on this issue, maintain her claim that it
is impossible to trace people who were infected with the
hepatitis C virus as a result of a blood transfusion, when the Red
Cross is preparing to do so?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as I
said yesterday and the day before, and I will repeat it again
today, we have several partners who are involved in the blood
supply system. I commend the Red Cross, which is examining a
proposal. However, the fact remains that it will be very difficult
and well nigh impossible to go back any further than 1990, when
we started testing for hepatitis C. We are waiting to find out how
effective their proposal will be.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister endorse what was said by the spokesperson for her
government, who pointed out that this kind of initiative would
not be very useful because there is no effective treatment for this
disease?
Does the minister still deny there is a risk of spreading the
hepatitis C virus if people are not informed?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
there is no vaccine against hepatitis C. At least, not yet.
Scientists are working on it, but there is no vaccine right now.
(1420)
There are ways to treat the disease itself, but we want to wait
for recommendations from the Red Cross. What they are looking
at is still very vague. We should not get too excited about all
these proposals. I think we should take this a day at a time.
As I said before, hepatitis C has been with us since the forties,
when we started our blood transfusion system. However, testing
for hepatitis C has only been possible since the nineties. Since
that time, out of the total number of blood donors, only 0.3 per
cent were found to be infected with hepatitis C. The blood taken
from these donors was never used.
4772
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, if the Red
Cross is preparing to trace people, there is a serious problem.
Are we to understand that the minister is not taking any action
because she is opposed to the idea of compensating individuals
who were infected with the hepatitis C virus as a result of blood
transfusion?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
always take my responsibilities very seriously, but the point is
that we do not have all the answers. When we say that no testing
was possible before 1990, that is the honest truth. No testing was
possible. We are now working with the Red Cross, the hospitals,
the provinces and all parties responsible for protecting the
health of Canadians, to provide the best possible service.
* * *
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Kanesatake band council suspended work on the expansion
of the Indian cemetery in a gesture of good will. The band
council chief mentioned however that certain unspecified
conditions would have to be met before negotiations could
resume.
My question is, of course, for the minister of Indian affairs.
Can he confirm that among the conditions set by Jerry Peltier,
there is, according to CBC, the payment to the band council of
certain sums of money? And if so, how much is involved?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, there were times during the
so-called mini Oka crisis when it was important that the
situation be calm, the negotiators be at the table, and the
mediators be appointed. I think that time has past. The mediator,
the negotiator and the principals are meeting.
Over the next few days, until I hear what solutions are coming
forward, I do not think it is appropriate to do the negotiating
through the press or through the House.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, could the
minister tell us if the administrative inquiry conducted by his
department into the use of federal grants by the band council was
discussed during the discussions prior to the resumption of the
negotiations? Did the pre-negotiations deal with this issue?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, the question will have to be put
with more clarity before I can answer it. After the House
convenes if the member wants to make that a clear question and
on a specific point I would be prepared to talk to him and answer
specifically what he is talking about.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that the parliamentary
secretary for fisheries has a 50 per cent interest in Dynamic
Maintenance Ltd., a company that on May 1 of this year received
a three-year contract for maintenance at Pearson International
Airport worth $13.5 million?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I understand that a company that the parliamentary
secretary formerly had an involvement with had a contract with
Pearson. This has been made public. It was carried in one of the
newspapers.
(1425)
An hon. member: About three weeks ago.
Mr. Tobin: About three weeks ago for the members who were
asleep at the switch. Apparently it is quite normal, done within
the normal tendering procedure. If the member is alleging a
specific wrongdoing he should make the allegation. Otherwise
he should find something more useful to talk about.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, somebody
has been asleep at the switch here.
Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that even though the
member indicated he had resigned as a director and officer of
Dynamic Maintenance Ltd. and he supposedly did this on
December 1, 1993, as of May 24, 1994 the parliamentary
secretary of fisheries is still listed with the B.C. Ministry of
Finance and Corporate Relations as an officer of this company.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps when I tell the member that my understanding
is that the parliamentary secretary is totally in compliance with
all of the requirements of the conflict code, and this has been
checked with the most senior authorities of the government, the
member might want to seek unanimous consent to stand and
apologize for making reckless accusations.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, in a letter
dated April 12, 1994, Mr. Howard R. Wilson the Assistant
Deputy Registrar General and candidate for the position of
Liberal ethics counsellor in response to a request for guidance
on this possible conflict stated that he was satisfied the company
was ``administered blindly and at arm's length to the member''.
Yet one of the directors listed is the father of the member with
whom he shares and co-owns a residence.
Does this qualify in the opinion of the government as an arm's
length relationship?
4773
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, this particular party across the way came to Parliament
promising to do business so-called differently and to bring a
new standard.
The member opposite is fully aware that the senior official
who has the responsibility for ensuring compliance with the
conflict code has indicated that all of the requirements of the
conflict code have been met and all of the arrangements required
have been met. Nevertheless, this member stands on no other
basis than seeking to damage the reputation of an hon. member
and makes crazy and wild allegations. He ought to be ashamed
and he ought to apologize.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, upon the recent
return of the Minister of Foreign Affairs from a trip to Paris, the
government claimed that relations between France and Canada
had never been better. And yet, Mr. Alain Juppé, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs, said in the French National Assembly that Bill
C-29, which Canada had just passed to control overfishing, was
unacceptable and that he intended to challenge it with the help of
other European countries.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister explain how it is that the
recent visit to France of her foreign affairs minister has resulted
in a vigourous and open challenge of the measures proposed by
Canada to control overfishing?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I find it astounding that
there is in this House a Canadian MP-he is still Canadian as far
as I know-who opposes a policy which was unanimously
adopted by this House to try to prevent overfishing. If he wants
to sit in the French National Assembly, I invite him to do so. But
here, in Canada, we have a unanimous policy regarding the theft
of our resources.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary
is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I think that as fishing
enthusiasts, we will understand the issue better. He might also
enlighten the Deputy Prime Minister; he knows the Bloc
Quebecois strongly supported the bill at second and third
readings.
(1430)
Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans is this: How does he intend to convince the French
government of the validity-the Deputy Prime Minister is
taking note, I hope-of the provisions of Bill C-29, when
France believes that this piece of legislation is not in accordance
with international law and the law of the sea? Can the minister
explain now how Canada is going to make France see reason?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
All members of this party and I have acknowledged in the past
that it was a unanimous motion in the House supported by all
parties that allowed for quick passage of our foreign overfishing
bill, and I acknowledge that again today.
I would ask the member to acknowledge that sometimes when
Canadian parliamentarians visit France they do not always get
the kind of support they are expecting for their initiatives. That
level of disappointment is shared on some days in equal measure
by members on the government side and sometimes even by the
Leader of the Opposition.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services.
Yesterday the government released a number of public
opinion polls commissioned by the previous government. The
minister also promised greater public access to the results of
polling by this government in the future.
Would the minister advise whether the federal government is
currently conducting any polling specifically related to the
national unity issue and which agency or department of the
government is conducting such polling?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, the brief answer is that I
am not aware of any polling that is being done at the present
time.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
the minister is not aware. I have a supplementary question.
Presumably the government will be doing such polling over
the summer and fall months. Could the minister assure us that
the results of such polling would be made public on a timely
basis?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the rules
permit me to answer a hypothetical question. It is a presumption
of the leader of the Reform Party which we do not concur with.
4774
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General of
Canada.
According to an article in this morning's edition of Le Soleil,
the Solicitor General's office is in possession of an RCMP report
that says weapons are being smuggled into the country on CP
freight trains returning from the United States. According to the
report, the point of entry for the smuggled weapons is Montreal,
with the Kahnawake reserve being their ultimate destination.
Given that the source of this briefing note is his own
department, can the Solicitor General tell us why RCMP
authorities have not stepped in yet to stop the smuggling?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
can assure my hon. colleague that further to my inquiries, my
department insists that it has no knowledge whatsoever of the
existence of such a briefing note. Let me assure the hon. member
that the RCMP, along with Customs, will take the necessary
measures to resolve this situation.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): Mr.
Speaker, my supplementary is also for the Solicitor General. Are
we to understand from his answer that the RCMP, as hinted by Le
Soleil, has not put a stop to the smuggling operations which
involve the use of warehouses on the Kahnawake reserve
because it has not been authorized to do so by the federal
government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
as I have said many times, the RCMP has every right to do its job
anywhere in the country. There are no ``no go'' zones. It does not
need the government's permission to do its job on native
reserves or anywhere else in Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
The minister announced amendments to the young offenders
system this morning. His statements do not deal with a reduction
in the age parameters of the Young Offenders Act.
(1435)
How do the announcements of the minister reflect the thrust
of thousands of submissions which he says he has received from
the recent round of public consultations?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the amendments we
introduced this morning in our view reflect those submissions
and that consultation very directly.
Among other things, the bill we put before the House of
Commons at ten o'clock this morning sends a strong message
from the government that crimes of violence will not be
tolerated from any age group in society.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Rock: Reflecting the consultations and in keeping with
commitments the government has given, we have doubled the
maximum sentence for first degree murder and increased to
seven years the sentence for second degree murder.
We have broadened extensively the sharing of information
about young offenders for purposes of community safety. For 16
and 17 year olds, the top age group among young offenders,
charged with the most serious crimes of violence we have in fact
reversed the onus on the transfer test to adult court so that they
must demonstrate they have the right to remain in youth court
for rehabilitation purposes.
These and other measures directly reflect many of the themes
that were sounded during our extensive consultations with
Canadians.
The Speaker: Before the Chair goes to the supplementary
question, as all colleagues are aware this bill is before the
House. I would judge to be in order questions of a general nature
such as the last one posed. I would caution that questions not be
specific because they are going to be dealt with in the bill.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, I commend the minister for his willingness to table
legislation to make changes.
Will the minister assure the House that the government will
stop defending all basic tenets of the current juvenile system and
remain open to major amendments such as age of operation if
there is community support for change?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, the government continues to
believe the youth justice system is fundamentally sound, and we
support it.
The question of age, as the hon. member knows, and other
questions about the youth justice system were expressly put to
the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The hon.
member will know, because I have made the letter public and
provided copies to members of the House, that I have expressly
asked the standing committee to undertake a comprehensive
review of the statute and the youth justice system generally after
it has reported on the bill I tabled this morning.
One of the subjects I asked the committee to look at was the
question of age.
4775
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance. A study made public
yesterday by Statistics Canada shows that women in particular
are hard hit by the recession. The drop in labour force
attachment of women which has been observed since the
beginning of the recession is reversing historical trends. Women
between 15 and 24 years of age are the main victims of this
recent decline in the female labour force.
Does the Minister of Finance recognize that women, and
young women in particular, are being hit harder than anyone else
by the current economic difficulties and does he intend to put in
place a real job creation strategy that will benefit women as
well?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's
concern over this particular issue. Employment equity is one of
this government's primary objectives and we have taken
specific steps over the past six months to address this problem.
For example, under the Canadian Youth Service Corps
program, participants will be allowed to use $2,000 for day care.
We are currently actively negotiating with the provinces to open
more day-care spaces. I also hope to table concrete proposals in
this House in the fall to address employment equity problems
encountered by women.
I hope we can count on the support of the hon. member and her
party regarding these specific measures designed to help us
reach this highly important objective.
(1440)
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is also for the Minister of Finance. Will
the minister recognize that the infrastructure program, the only
concrete job creation measure put forward by his government,
provides very few opportunities for women in view of the nature
of the work involved?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure): Mr. Speaker,
we have tried to promote with the provinces and municipalities a
mix of projects so that in various sectors of society where
unemployment prevails there will be opportunities including
opportunities for women.
That point was brought home to me by the secretary of state in
charge of women's issues. I assured her, as I assure the House,
that we would encourage those applications.
Daycare facilities very much qualify as part of the
infrastructure program. There are numerous projects aside from
construction where permanent long term jobs are created, and
many of them are for women.
We will continue to encourage the provinces and the
municipalities to provide that kind of mixture so women in other
sectors of society can be employed, because the government's
number one priority is job creation.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Today the minister tabled amendments to the Young
Offenders Act by which the sentence for murder has doubled.
Sixteen and seventeen year olds accused of serious crime will
automatically be transferred to adult court unless they can prove
they should stay in youth court, and the identities of young
offenders will be more available.
In the past the minister has said that we must concentrate on
rehabilitation of youth and give them a second chance. Will the
minister tell the House-
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
In early March the minister arranged for a meeting at Chateau
Montebello to discuss immigration policy consultation.
However a reading of the summary of the meeting indicates that
something other than public consultation was discussed.
Will the minister admit that the purpose of this million dollar
so-called consultation process is to change public opinion
rather than respond to it?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely false.
The Reform Party has advocated as one of its prime
motivating reasons for being here opening up the process of
government to those who wish to discuss and debate the issues
of the day. The government has opened up the consultation
process on immigration policy to an unprecedented level since
the green paper in 1976.
For a two-day period we took approximately 40 to 45
Canadians from a variety of disciplines in western, northern,
central and eastern Canada to talk about two things: how we
consult fellow Canadians on immigration and what are the
issues we need to consult on. No more, no less.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, the
document speaks for itself and I quote from it:
4776
The public education aspect of the consultative process will require some careful
thought-neither governments nor NGOs enjoy sufficient credibility to effectively
convey the ``facts'' on immigration to Canadians-the media could be ``constructively
engaged in the process''.
Mr. Speaker, does this sound like consultation to you? How
does the minister defend what appears to be a cynical and
manipulative approach to dealing with the public on this very
important issue?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, unlike the leader of the Reform
Party and that entire caucus we do not need a Conservative
member of our office to do any coaching on how we approach
the business of government or Parliament.
We are consulting Canadians. We have in train 10 working
groups that will be both round table and public. There will be
five townhall meetings across the country. There will be eight
study groups across the country. I have invited every member of
the committee to be part of one of the working groups.
The government has nothing to hide. We want to rally a broad
consensus for what immigration can do for the country as a
nation building tool.
* * *
(1445)
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Justice. Under pressure from some members of
the public and the conservative wing of the Liberal party, the
Minister of Justice followed up on the Liberal Party's red book
and tabled a bill toughening the provisions of the Young
Offenders Act.
Can the Minister of Justice assure us that his bill respects
Quebec's laws and policies on youth protection, as Quebec's
National Assembly demanded last month?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are fully aware of
differences of opinion on this law and we are also aware of
regional disparities. We know that Quebec's approach to
enforcing the law has clearly proven itself. We think, however,
that the changes in this bill give each of the provinces enough
flexibility to adjust and administer the law while taking their
particular circumstances into account.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, does the minister
admit that his bill sends the message that young offenders must
go to prison to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, that is not true at all. In fact,
our proposed amendments to this act focus on the rehabilitation
of young offenders.
[English]
Among other things, we have proposed changes to the
statements of principle that will expressly state that the interests
of society are best served by the rehabilitation of offenders.
Instead of just proposing the automatic transfer of 16 and
17-year olds, which some would have us do, we suggested in
this bill that they be brought before the court one at a time for a
judge to make that decision. Most particularly, in the case of
non-violent offences we have introduced specific measures that
would require the court to resort only as a last step to custody
and to focus instead on community based rehabilitative
dispositions.
Therefore I disagree fundamentally with the premise of the
hon. member's question. I say that this bill reflects a balance
between a strong message against violence and rehabilitation of
the offenders.
* * *
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Transport.
In a five-year period ending in 1991, British Columbia light
stations came to the aid of the public over 32,000 times. These
incidents range from rescues to offering pilots emergency
weather reports.
Does the minister agree with the commissioner of the Coast
Guard who says that lighthouses in British Columbia are no
longer essential?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
for anyone to suggest that on the coast of British Columbia or on
the coast of eastern Canada lighthouses are not essential would
be totally irresponsible.
We have said that what we intend to do is to look at the
staffing of lighthouses. The technology of 1994 has allowed the
United Kingdom, Australia, the United States, countries around
the world, including Canada on the east coast, to make major
changes in how to protect and make sure that people who use the
sea are safe.
The Department of Transport understands its obligation to
people who earn their living on the sea or who spend leisure time
on the sea. We have no intention of doing anything on the west
coast of Canada or anywhere else that would put the safety of
Canadians at risk.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, what price does
the minister put on public safety?
4777
Lightkeepers make a major contribution in offering comfort
and advice to maritime travellers. Why not shut down 36 desks
in Ottawa rather than 36 B.C. light stations?
(1450 )
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member undoubtedly raises a question which is of great
importance to many people who do not understand what has
happened in many other parts of the world.
With all due respect, all of us recognize the magnificence of
the British Columbia coast, its harbours and bays and the
tremendous amount of marine activity which takes place out
there. I would simply suggest to the hon. member that he look at
what happened on the west coast of the United States. It is very
similar. The situation in the U.K., the United States, Australia
and around the world is that technology is replacing human
beings in lighthouses. It is going to happen on the west coast, but
it will only happen when we take into account the safety and
security of people who use marine facilities in that area.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North): Mr. Speaker,
in keeping with the tradition of this 35th Parliament of
providing open and constructive debates on major issues
affecting Canadians such as the ones we had previously on
peacekeeping and defence, I wish to ask the hon. government
House leader the following question.
Will he consider the idea of a special debate in the House on
the ways and means of replacing the GST so that MPs from all
sides of the House will have a chance to voice their concern on
this very important issue?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
in the next few weeks the Standing Committee on Finance will
be making a report to the House on the matter of the replacement
of the GST. After this report is tabled I think there will be
opportunities to debate the matter in the House. I would be
happy to consult with members on both sides of the House as to
how we can use this report as a basis for debate.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Yesterday, the minister confirmed the commitment made by
the Prime Minister that a French-language school will be built
in Kingston as quickly as possible, given the appalling
conditions of the existing facilities, which have no toilets nor
running water, and which have been used as a school for over six
years.
Considering that the Kingston French-language school board
has decided to build a school on the Olan Mills site, considering
that the Ontario Department of Education has approved the
$7-million contribution for the construction of the school on
that site, and considering that the minister himself and the
Ontario minister of culture have authorized a budget of over one
million dollars for the construction of a cultural centre adjacent
to the school, will the minister pledge to ensure that the
French-language school will be built on the site selected and
bought by the school board?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to repeat what the Prime Minister and
myself have already said. It is our wish and our will to see that
school move to new facilities in Kingston.
We have indeed allocated funds in this regard, which reflects
our will to see the issue solved. The primary responsibility lies
with the provincial department, municipal officials and
concerned school board.
We have already contacted provincial authorities to express
our concern. Right now, school board members are negotiating
with Kingston officials to speed up the process. I think we must
trust those who are primarily concerned, namely the school
board officials, and give them a chance to solve the issue with
our general support.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, I have a supplementary. Since the approval of Kingston
city council is the only thing delaying the construction of the
school, does the minister not realize that, at this stage, the
search for another site, or any delay in the council decision,
would unduly postpone the timely construction of an adequate
French-language school in Kingston?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, clearly we want to see this issue come to a conclusion
as quickly as possible. I think that the best way to do so is to give
a chance to those who are currently negotiating to reach an
agreement, rather than disturb the process with all the political
considerations which the party opposite is trying to bring up.
4778
(1455 )
[English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
The minister stated in a Toronto Star article on May 28, 1994
that she has the terms of reference for the National Health Care
Forum. This forum would have a four-year mandate and a
budget of $12 million.
Will the minister acknowledge today that our health care
system is in critical condition and requires emergency care? Is
she going to take four years to make decisions to save Canada's
health care system?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
have said it before and I will say it again. The national forum is
meant to be a process. It is a series of meetings to put forward
ideas for the renewal of our health system, not just our health
care system, for the 21st century. It is not meant to take the place
of the Conference of Federal-Provincial Ministers of Health
who are meant to take the day to day decisions having to do with
our health care system.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr.
Speaker, nothing grates the sense of an opposition member more
than to continue to have our serious questions not answered with
truthful straight answers.
Some hon. members: Shame.
Some hon. members: Withdraw.
The Speaker: I know the hon. member, as many members
sometimes in putting questions, will have a certain sense that
the question is not being answered, but I would hope that the
hon. member would withdraw the allegation that the answers are
not truthful. Would the hon. member withdraw.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): I will say this
much, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to have-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Order. I put it to the hon. member, with all
respect, would the hon. member withdraw.
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca): Mr. Speaker, I will
withdraw the statement about truthful.
I would though like to have a straight answer on this if I may.
What are the terms of reference of the health care forum?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
often many statements are made in the House and many
statements were made in the last election, especially by that
particular party across the way, but in all honesty, we upheld the
principles of the Canada Health Act and we have not moved
from our commitment to those.
In recent articles I have read, the hon. member believes the
rich should pay for their health care. In Canada and many other
countries there are many things which are available to people
who can pay for them, more suits among other things. With
regard to health care, we believe there should not be any kind of
cash register approach to it. It should be equal for everyone.
The terms of reference for the forum will be released when we
are ready to release them.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of revenue. After the election, the
minister said that he would abolish the GST within a year, but
now we have learned that he will be bringing in changes, not to
abolish but rather to hide the GST.
(1500)
In the meantime, his department has released a flyer that we
have read today. It says: ``Don't miss out. Take advantage of the
$100,000 capital gains exemption''.
The minister has refused to close some of the tax loopholes.
Why has he not agreed to eliminate tax loopholes such as the
capital gains exemption and the family trusts, instead of going
after the poor and the underprivileged? Maybe because he wants
to increase the GST instead of abolishing it.
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for her
question. Since she is not here very often, she made the most of
it and included a lot of things in her question.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
[English]
The Speaker: I am sure the hon. minister will want to answer
the question directly.
[Translation]
Mr. Anderson: Of course, Mr. Speaker.
First of all, the hon. member mentioned the GST. It is true
that, one hour after becoming minister of National Revenue, I
thought it was possible to abolish the GST within a year of my
appointment. I still have a few months left. I am waiting. Maybe
I have become more realistic and less optimistic. We will need
another year, maybe two at the most. Like everyone else in this
House, I am waiting for the report of the House committee
reviewing the GST.
Mr. Speaker, I am waiting to receive the report of this
all-party committee. Once I get it, I will review it, like every
other cabinet member.
4779
[English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry.
Ultramar Canada has announced plans to sell if possible and,
if not, to completely close down its refinery in Dartmouth; this
in spite of the fact that when Ultramar acquired this plant in
1990 it signed an agreement with the federal competitions
bureau to keep this operation open until at least 1997.
I want to ask the minister what measures he and his
department are taking to ensure that Ultramar indeed lives up to
the letter of these commitments and does not easily extract itself
from this agreement with the federal government.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, as
the hon. member knows, Ultramar acquired the assets of Texaco
in 1990 pursuant to a consent order of the competition tribunal
and subject to the agreement of the director of investigations
and research under the Competition Act on the basis of
undertakings given by Ultramar to keep the refinery in
Dartmouth open for seven years, unless there was a material
adverse change in circumstances.
Ultramar is now saying that there is such a material adverse
change in circumstances and endeavouring to either sell or,
failing to sell, to close the refinery.
The director of investigations and research is investigating to
assure himself of the facts that are the basis of the claim of an
adverse change in circumstances. Once he is satisfied as to
whether such a change has occurred he will then be in a position
to take the appropriate action either to enforce the undertakings
or to permit Ultramar to proceed with its actions.
I can assure the hon. member that we are very concerned, with
him, about the jobs that are at risk in Dartmouth as a result of
this decision and we want to make sure that the right thing is
done.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, I would like
the leader of the government in the House to inform us of the
order of business for the next few days.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to provide the weekly business statement.
Tomorrow we will begin with Bill C-18 concerning the
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. I will have a motion on
the Order Paper by six o'clock this evening with respect to
certain amendments. If the House deals with the matter quickly
enough we will return to Bill C-34 regarding Yukon native
self-government, followed by Bill C-33 respecting Yukon land
claims.
(1505)
Next Monday, as already announced and as already agreed to
by the House, the House will commence its sitting at two o'clock
in the afternoon rather than eleven o'clock in the morning in
order to permit members to attend the service at the National
War Memorial commemorating the 50th anniversary of D-Day.
The government business for Monday when we come back
will be the amendments to the Young Offenders Act. We will
begin debate on second reading of the bill to carry out those
amendments.
Tuesday and Wednesday shall be allotted days. Wednesday
being the last allotted day for the present supply period, the
House will sit late pursuant to the rules, with any questions
necessary to dispose of the main estimates and the
supplementary estimates being voted on starting at ten o'clock
in the evening.
Subject to further discussions and to the progress in debate
made earlier I would hope to call the bill reorganizing the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration on Thursday. I will
confirm the business for the latter part of next week at the
regular weekly House leaders meeting early next week.
_____________________________________________
4779
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Madam Speaker, I did not realize that I had five
minutes left on my remarks. I will take that time to review some
of the points that I made in my speech before question period
began.
As I said, the opposition motion today tried to discredit the
Government of Canada as not having effective regional
development plans or programs or instruments. Those people in
every region of Canada know that we have always had
decentralized instruments to help deal with very sensitive and
diverse regional business opportunities.
4780
The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has been dealing
with the problem of regional development expansion for the last
number of years. In the province of Ontario we have the FedNor,
which has been designed to look after northern Ontario
opportunities, western Canada diversification and FORD-Q in
the province of Quebec.
For the Bloc Quebecois to put forward an opposition motion
today that would suggest that we are not governing in a
decentralized way is not accurate.
The real point of the Bloc's motion today has to do with the
fact that it does not believe the Government of Canada should
have people speaking for Canada in the province of Quebec. It
does not believe in having a Government of Canada presence
active on the ground in Quebec.
Of course none of us on the government side of the House
shares that position. Imagine a situation in which it is saying,
have the Government of Canada send a cheque because they in
the province of Quebec know how to spend that cheque best.
(1510 )
We have had experiences in the province of Quebec in the past
in which it has not been interested in the national position or the
national view. Normally the province of Quebec or for that
matter the province of Ontario are just basically speaking for
provincial matters. When we are in the national government
position we have to balance our view.
As a national parliamentarian coming from Toronto I do not
just stand here and speak for Toronto. We do not just stand here
and say that the only part of the country we are concerned about
is Ontario. The proof in the pudding on that has to do with the
entitlements that were granted before the budget in January
when under the Constitution of Canada the new formula for
entitlements was announced by the Minister of Finance in which
the have provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario
will transfer to the province of Quebec $70 billion over the next
five years.
If a person were just interested in the province of Ontario do
you think that the provincial members would say they have to
send cheques off to the province of Quebec? That would not
happen.
The purpose of this Chamber is to make sure that the regional
disadvantages and the regional diversity are looked after by a
strong national government, so stronger provinces make sure
that provinces that go through weaker periods from time to time
share in the wealth of the whole nation.
I resent the opposition motion today because it really is not a
motion that speaks about how we build a stronger Canada. It is
not a motion that is sincere because it is coming from a party that
basically wants to destroy the country. I do not want any part of
it.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly): Madam Speaker, I listened
carefully to the much too lengthy comments of the hon. member
for Broadview-Greenwood who talked about almost
everything, except regional development.
I want to point out to the hon. member that although it is true
that the federal government is about to transfer $70 billion to
Quebec in the next five years within the equalization program,
this money comes for the most part from the pockets of
Quebecers. The only pennies which are paid to Quebec but do
not come from the pockets of Quebecers are those which are
borrowed in their names. The government should know it and
stop acting as if it was always playing Santa Claus because it is
not true. The government is acting in bad faith.
Canada's accumulated deficit of some $500 billion is nothing
to be proud of, even in Broadview-Greenwood. Our economy
is in such a mess because of the accumulated debt that they
should not dare play Santa Claus.
Members of the Bloc have been rightfully and legally elected
to this House and they have a right to speak and the hon. member
for Broadview-Greenwood is not the one who will silence us.
If this does not please him, he can always go behind the curtain.
This is maybe where he will do his best work.
Moreover, we are here to talk about regional development.
Did the hon. member tell us about regional development
infrastructures? We would have expected him to talk about that.
Did he say anything, for example, about regional airport
infrastructures? This is an important issue. My riding of
Chambly is located in the Richelieu valley and includes some
large municipalities. We have a road system. We have provincial
road infrastructures that were not given to us by the hon.
member for Broadview-Greenwood. They were paid for by the
province of Quebec.
(1515)
We have a nice road system that, unfortunately, is
deteriorating rapidly because the Liberals have cut rail
transport, because they have abandoned rail lines everywhere.
That forces us to overutilize our roads, which are paid for with
provincial funds.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood tells us that the
federal government helped make Hydro-Québec what it is
today. If the federal government ever gave a penny to
Hydro-Québec, Madam Speaker, I would like the member to
compare that with the amount of money that the federal
government gave to Atomic Energy of Canada, in Ontario, over
the same period. There is absolutely no comparison possible.
They are federalists. The hon. member for Madawaska said that
some people in this House have a selective memory. I think that
applies very
4781
much to members of the present federal government. Talk about
selective memory! The federal government never gave a penny
to Hydro-Québec, as opposed to billions of dollars that were
given to Atomic Energy of Canada.
The member did not talk much about Hibernia. Regional
development is important. We need the infrastructures and we
have to spend money for that. Let us take regional airports, for
example. I said a few minutes ago that the town of Richelieu, in
my riding, and all the surrounding towns, including
Marieville-almost all of which have a small industrial park and
a good road system connecting with the Montreal-Sherbrooke
freeway, Highway 10, Highway 30 and roads to the United
States, and are not far from railway lines which have not yet
been abandoned-adopted resolutions asking for a regional
airport.
Many people, including those from Sivaco, a fair-sized
factory in Marieville, talked of closing their doors because the
senior executives who come from God knows where in the
United States find that there is an access problem because they
have to land in Montreal and then travel the rest of the way by
car in winter. They would prefer to have a small airport close by.
So the towns adopted resolutions to that effect and we are
trying to wake the federal government up because it has the bad
habit of investing only when it can see the picture of the minister
responsible for the area in local papers; otherwise regional
development does not interest it. They did that to me last week
in Saint-Bruno, when the Minister of Canadian Heritage came
to announce a contribution of $11 million from the
infrastructure program and tried to convince the people there
that that money was a gift from heaven, from a place not far from
Toronto, probably Broadview-Greenwood.
I conclude by saying that instead of moaning as they have all
day about the presence here of the Bloc Quebecois, they should
shoulder their responsibilities and do some regional
development. That is what we need and that is the subject of
today's debate, whatever the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood may think.
[English]
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Madam Speaker, I
would not want the hon. member to think that I was whining. I
was merely trying to point out to the member and to members of
the Bloc that the province of Quebec has benefited by being part
of Confederation.
I can say that James Bay has received hundreds of millions of
dollars from the national government, from environment and
from Canada Mortgage and Housing for every aspect of that
project. If you do not believe me go to the Library of Parliament
and they will produce the records dollar for dollar for you.
(1520)
There is no resentment for that. This is part of Confederation.
All we are saying is do not pretend that the national government
has done nothing for the province of Quebec. My goodness, that
is an insult to all the elected members who come from Quebec.
Look at the 16-year period of Pierre Elliott Trudeau when the
Liberals had 74 out of 75 members and see all the great things
that happened in the province of Quebec.
The difference was that those members of Parliament
believed in Canada. If this group over here would start believing
in Canada maybe then we could get our economy going a little
better and maybe we could put even more money into the
province of Quebec. That is how we would get more Quebecers
back to work.
Throw away this idea of destroying the country and get back
to reality. You will never be able to build a strong economy by
ignoring the fact that a great deal of the reason we are rated
number one in the world today as a nation to live in is because
historically we have all worked together. The minute that we
destroy that reality of Canada, it is not just your constituents
who are going to suffer, it is mine and everyone else's in this
country.
That is why I become very emotional about my country. I
believe and I am going to continue to preach the fact that when
you are in this House of Commons you should be building
Canada, you should not be here trying to destroy it.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Madam Speaker, I will be
sharing my time with the member for Edmonton Southwest.
One of the most interesting things about human beings is that
we very frequently do not learn from history. If we do not learn
from history the one thing that we can count on is the fact that we
will be doomed to repeat it.
When I was first involved in business, going back a few years
to the very early seventies, I became aware of a government
regional grant program under the acronym of DREE. Somehow
under this DREE program the decision was made that the West
Kootenays would be a have not portion of my particular part of
the country whereas the East Kootenays had a lot of funds and
could do its own thing.
As a result of the DREE program, there was a decision to go
ahead with a chainsaw manufacturing process at Waneta, just
outside of Trail in British Columbia. This chainsaw
manufacturing was really spot on in terms of its time in coming
to the market. Rather than just manufacturing chainsaws it was
manufacturing a small personal portable chainsaw. For those of
4782
us who are familiar with what was happening in that particular
marketplace, it was very timely. Between 1972 and 1976 DREE
put $200,000 into that chainsaw manufacturing company.
In Castlegar at about the same time there was another venture
that went forward to generate light weight travel trailers. If we
go back 21 or 22 years in our minds, we realize that there was a
market for a light weight travel trailer. DREE had this light
weight travel trailer manufacturer set up in Castlegar and put in
$220,000.
Unfortunately, I am forced to report that neither of these
ventures are still in place. As a matter of fact, they disappeared
from the business scene. They are gone.
Working a little bit in this direction, in the early eighties in
Cranbrook, which is where my home constituency is, there was a
printing company. I am not really sure of the figures, but it was
put into place with between $496,000 and $750,000 of
government grants. That business went for about 24 months, ran
into cash flow problems and the business was shut down. There
was no way the government could ever recover its over half
million dollar investment. Because it had run into the cash flow
problems it had let its insurance lapse. The building was
vandalized and hence there were no assets for the government to
reclaim.
(1525)
Coming even further forward into the mid to late 1980s I am
very familiar with an operation in Langley. This one, instead of
being unfortunate, unfortunately was a scam. A company
decided to develop a communication development laboratory.
The principals of that firm actually disguised antiquated
equipment. People in smocks were running around and this
fooled the government inspectors. The venture lasted one year.
It was not quite enough of a scam to catch the attention of the
police. As a result Canadians are out half a million dollars.
My thesis is if the marketplace will not support a business
start up it likely will not support the business. That is the
fundamental flaw, the fundamental problem of regional
development grants.
Let me give some specific examples. The federal government
wants to forgive $5.3 million it lent to the Sydney Steel
Corporation of Nova Scotia which is owned by the Nova Scotia
government. The Cape Breton company borrowed the money in
the early 1970s to build a wharf. The government also wants to
forgive the $20.4 million in interest payments the corporation
now owes on that loan.
The government wants to forgive a $4.6 million loan to the
International Tin Association, an organization set up to help
stabilize the tin process. Since the association was disbanded in
1985 the government has determined the chances for repayment
are rather slim.
We have an absolute hole as it were that we seem to be
constantly pouring money into with good intentions. I sincerely
applaud the motive, the background, and the desire of the
government. Unfortunately, it has not learned from history.
In doing some research on this speech I had my assistant make
some telephone calls and he reports this:
``Government's best intentions whether it be to assist small
business or to employ people or train people would be best left
to the people who know how to develop and manage company's
employees, which means small business people in every
community.
The best way government could do that according to the
people I have talked to would be for the government to demand
less from each small businessman in the way of red tape,
completing forms, GST returns, in other words the services he is
required to fulfil for the federal government. This would allow
him more time to do what he does best which is to effectively run
his company so as to produce some real dollars and provide real
lasting jobs for people in his community and Canada as a whole.
Government by trying to control the labour market that
interferes with supply and demand whether it be printers or cows
only interferes with free enterprise and the people who really
know the marketplace''.
My point is that when the government gets involved with
throwing around taxpayer's money unfortunately that almost
invariably interferes with the normal marketplace.
The very best result that we can expect from the funds the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and the Western
Diversification Fund are throwing into the marketplace is that it
will simply distort the marketplace. The difficulty is when it
distorts the ordinary marketplace it makes it difficult for
successful tax paying businesses to be able to continue in
business. They find that all of a sudden their taxpayers' dollars
are being used to subsidize businesses that are in competition
with them.
I have been hearing a little bit of yapping from the other side
of the House. Perhaps if they were to talk to some of their
business people they would get exactly the same story as I am
relating here.
(1530 )
I have explained the best result. The worst result is probably
best explained when western economic diversification fund
officials on January 16, 1990 lent $526,990 to Myrias Research
Corporation. On April 17 they gave it another $1.4 million. On
May 30, 1990 they gave it another $686 million. On August 9,
1990 they gave it another $775,000. On October 5, 1990 they
gave it another $517,000. On October 26 the corporation was
placed in receivership.
4783
If the government, which has the best of intentions, granted, is
not prepared to take lessons from history and learn from history
then we have the difficulty of repeating history.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Madam Speaker, talking
about taking a lesson from history, I wonder how the hon.
member's party would have existed in the early stages of our
history when the government actually had to finance Canadian
Pacific to build a railway across the country to link the country
together to create the nation we live in today. It seems, if we had
had a Reform Party representing the people out west, they would
not have been part of Confederation in the first place.
Incidentally that was a perfect example of the government
getting a business going, turning it over to private hands and
turning it into a success story.
All I hear from the Reform Party is about failures. Certainly
every time we get involved in a business venture there is the
possibility of risk, the possibility of failure.
I also want to focus on another aspect of regional
development. In some of these areas the federal government
through a process of transfer payments or whatever is sustaining
people. We have people on welfare and on unemployment
insurance.
I would like to direct a question to the Reform Party. If we
have a choice between paying people to sit home and do nothing
or trying to create worthwhile jobs and careers for people to get
out of that situation, which is more preferable?
Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, the member raises the
interesting point of bringing 1800 solutions to 1994 problems.
In 1800, when the CPR was being put together, we did not
have the gigantic welfare state we presently have. We did not
have unemployment insurance. We did not have 53 per cent of
all government spending going to individuals in a giant welfare
state like the Liberals in particular pioneered through the
seventies.
With the greatest respect, I must agree with the member about
the Canadian Pacific. Clearly it is a fact of history that it tied
Canada together; it is a done deal. How much did it really cost
Canada by coming out west when we take a look at the amount of
property that was given to the corporation, or by coming out
west when we take a look at the fact that we are still basically
paying for the line?
That is fine. That is history. I am proud of Canada. I am proud
to be a Canadian. I am happy the CPR was brought in. However I
suggest with the greatest respect that he is bringing an 1800
solution to a 1994 problem.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Madam Speaker, I wonder if
the hon. member, with his great knowledge of Canadian history,
is aware of a certain phenomenon that took place in post-war
Canada, in Atlantic Canada and eastern Canada in general but
most particularly in Atlantic Canada.
Atlantic Canadians paid $5 over world price for their oil that
went to the province of Alberta so that the oil industry could off
the ground. Eastern Canadians, maritimers, Atlantic Canadians,
did this in good faith because they believed we were one
country. They believed an oil industry in Alberta would be a
good thing for Canada, and they did it with pleasure.
Therefore, would the hon. member like to comment on that
fact, if he knows about it?
(1535)
Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, I would be very interested in
receiving some documentation of the fact the member has put
forward. My understanding of the oil industry in Alberta is that
it was financed fundamentally from the U.S. That was where
most of the dollars came from.
However, I suggest as part of the price the people in Alberta
have paid in order to be in Canada under the wonderful-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): On a point of order, the
hon. member for Chambly.
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We would
like to listen to the remarks of the hon. member, but it is difficult
because some members are talking in front of us. Could all
members be more cooperative?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): From time to time, there
are heated discussions in the House. The hon. member should
use his earphone, and I would ask all hon. members to show
more consideration.
[English]
Mr. Abbott: Madam Speaker, I was about to say that the
people of Alberta can recall very clearly, very vividly, the
confiscation of $67 billion from one province to central Canada
under the Liberal government's national energy plan. The point
therefore I want to make is that the people in western Canada
have contributed very much.
With the greatest respect to the people in Atlantic Canada, I
do not think they have an edge on contributions to Canada.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Madam
Speaker, it might not be a bad idea for members opposite and
those Canadians viewing the debate at home if we were to go
over the motion again so they know what we are talking about.
4784
Today is a supply day which means the opposition, and in this
case the Bloc, supplies the motion for debate in the House. The
motion the Bloc Quebecois put forth for debate today reads:
That this House condemn the federal government's ineffective regional
development interventions, which create overlappings and inconsistencies,
resulting in an administrative chaos that hampers regional economic growth.
Although I probably would not have put it in those terms at
all, the whole notion of Canada's regional development is one of
the basic differences between Canada and the United States,
Canada and many countries in the world. There are not many
countries in the world that take resources from one part of the
country and transfer them holus-bolus to another part of the
country in order to create some sort of evenness across the
country.
What usually happens in terms of world affairs is that they
make sacrifices for the future. Perhaps none of us would be here
in Canada today, or very few of us except the indigenous people,
if our forefathers had not left where they were so that they, their
children and their grandchildren could have a better life in a new
country.
What has happened in Canada over the years is that rather than
making the sacrifices for the future, we made the future sacrifice
for us today. Today when we are making transfers of money from
one part of the country to another, by and large the transfers of
money are transfers of borrowed money. We are really
transferring money and wealth from future generations to this
generation and then once again transferring it to another part of
the country, in the hopes that it will make one part of the country
work a bit better and that we will have a more even playing field.
I guess the debate is not really out. Does it work? Is it
effective? If it worked probably there would not be much debate
about it because we would recognize it as a good thing.
Given that we have been doing this transfer of resources from
one part of the country to another over these years and given that
it really has not changed the nature of dependence in various
parts of the country, it is reasonable to question whether it works
at all.
(1540 )
The basic premise of the Bloc motion is to suggest that
perhaps this money transfer could be done in a more efficient
and more effective way. From the Bloc's perspective it would
like to see all the money transferred to the province of Quebec
and the province of Quebec making the determination,
controlling all the strings, even though it is federal money. The
real question, though, is whether or not we should be doing it at
all.
I would draw the attention of hon. members to the situation
that exists in the United States. The southern United States, as
many members would know, for many years languished
relatively poorly compared with the northern and western
United States. Yet today the south is vibrant and flourishing in
part because it was not force-fed resources from the more
prosperous parts of the nation and in part because they have a
triple-E senate. Things were able to find their natural level. The
cost of land and the cost of being in business today in the
southern United States are less than in the north. Therefore
people establish their businesses in the south.
We do not have the same playing field in Canada because we
have a federal system of government that favours central
Canada at the expense of the regions, particularly the maritimes.
If we had a system of government that did not favour one part of
the country over another because the vast majority of the
population of Canada is centred in Ontario and Quebec, we
might not have the need for regional economic expansion.
I suggest we should give some thought to why we got into this
situation in the first place. The Bank of Nova Scotia
headquartered in Toronto is not called the Bank of Nova Scotia
because it started in Toronto. It is called the Bank of Nova Scotia
because it was established and started in Halifax. Why did it
move to Toronto? It is because that is where the economic base
of the country is. Chapter and verse the concentration of wealth
is in Ontario and Quebec because that is where all the votes are
in the country.
We need to change things in a much more fundamental way.
As a Parliament we should consider a triple-E senate because in
my opinion it would help dramatically in regional economic
expansion.
Does it work? Is it worthwhile? We have read with
considerable interest that the new entrepreneurial class in
Quebec in the last 20 years or so has created a revolution in
thinking and in spirit. My colleagues from Quebec could speak
in much more detail about it, but that is the perception many
other Canadians have of the entrepreneurial class in Quebec.
Quebec and Alberta in harmony embraced the whole notion of
NAFTA or free trade with the United States. As a matter of fact
Canada has free trade with the United States in very large
measure because Quebec wanted it and Alberta wanted it.
Let me just read a few statistics about what has happened to
the west after five years of free trade with the United States. I
submit that in these statistics lies the avenue for expanded
economic activity for Quebec, for the maritimes and for all other
parts of Canada. I am quoting from a report by the Centre for
International Business Studies, the Faculty of Business,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, dated April 1994:
Over the five year period, 1988 to 1993, the value of exports from western
Canada grew by 23 per cent, while exports to the U.S. market rose by 58 per
cent. The growth of total exports amounted to 51.3 per cent for Alberta, 18.4 per
cent for Manitoba, 9 per cent for British Columbia, and 3.7 per cent for
Saskatchewan. The growth in exports to U.S. markets was 77.1 per cent for
Alberta, 70.4 per cent for Saskatchewan, 46.4 per cent for Manitoba, and 34.2
per cent for British Columbia.
4785
(1545)
I recognize that in quoting all these numbers it ends up being a
major jumble. However, the fact remains we are not going to get
rich in our nation by transferring wealth from one part of the
country to another and then quibbling over who got more and
who got less or where it came from. We are going to be wealthy
as a nation because we produce wealth all over Canada. As an
exporting nation we export primarily to the biggest and
wealthiest market in the world which is right next door to us no
matter where we live in Canada, the United States.
If we would put half of our energies into developing our
manufacturing base, our competitiveness and our export
markets and break down the internal trade barriers so that we are
competitive within the country and put those energies into
exporting and developing our markets in the United States and
elsewhere in the world, we would gain dramatically. This
incessant bickering about who gets more and who gets less
within our Confederation is destructive and leads nowhere.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington): Madam
Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest used the
words quibbling and bickering several times. That concerns me.
As a new member in this House I have heard a lot of quibbling
and bickering and quite frankly, it has come from that side of the
House.
A colleague from eastern Canada not so very long ago talked
about the people whose livelihood in fishing had been
suspended. They were glad this government was helping them,
that it was willing to stand up for what we might call our
brothers and sisters in our family. I believe Canada is a family. I
think the Reform Party shares this view and believes that
Canada should continue to be a family and live as one. As a
family, sometimes it is important to help each other. When we
talk about putting money into different parts of Canada
sometimes that is the reality. In tough times we have to stick
together and do what is right for the country.
Members have spoken today about history repeating itself.
Many times in Canada's history it has been very positive to put
money into different parts of Canada and to have jobs flourish
and grow through that. Sometimes a hand up is a help.
Does the hon. member honestly believe there is a simple
solution? Should people only look out for themselves in their
own backyards and not for the rest of the people in the
community or country? Does the member believe that being a
grab all and keeping it for himself would promote growth and
jobs?
Mr. McClelland: Madam Speaker, in response to my hon.
colleague's questions, I do not remember saying anything about
a grab all in my presentation. One must be very cautious in using
the term grab all. What we are talking about is putting money
into the hands of individuals, in lending a helping hand and a
hand up. I do not think that anyone seriously quibbles or quarrels
with that.
What we do have a problem with is when the federal
government taxes individuals and takes the money into
government. It takes a dollar from the hands of the taxpayer and
then spits out 20 cents into the arms of a business. That business
will then go into competition with the business which supplied
the taxes in the first place.
(1550 )
This debate has nothing to do with transfers to individuals. It
has to do with regional economic expansion, which is federal
government money going to businesses and the federal
government picking winners and losers, or any government
picking winners and losers. I submit if members were to make a
list of winners and losers that all levels of governments have
picked, the list of losers would be as long as their arms and the
list of winners would be very short indeed.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Madam Speaker, I am
absolutely delighted to be able to stand here today and set the
record straight on some rather outlandish statements by Her
Majesty's Loyal Opposition and Official Opposition.
To claim that regional economic development efforts are
creating overlap and inconsistencies resulting in
``administrative chaos'' could not be further from the truth. This
government's approach to economic development is working
and is working toward eliminating the very overlap and
duplication my hon. colleague speaks of.
In particular, the record shows that the approach being taken
in regional economic development by the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency is extremely effective. In fact, given its
success in creating permanent jobs, ACOA is this government's
prime instrument to create economic development in the
Atlantic region.
The regional agency approach has the full confidence of the
government. Important gains have been made, but our
government is still not satisfied with the rate of economic
growth in Atlantic Canada. As such, much remains to be done to
assist the region in attaining its full potential.
[Translation]
In order to help it respond to new development challenges, the
agency must strategically direct its help to the most promising
economic development opportunities in terms of job creation.
Moreover, ACOA must become more aggressive in its efforts
with small businesses to help them discover viable commercial
ideas and actively realize them.
4786
Atlantic Canada's economy is going through a transition,
which can also be said of the rest of Canada and, in fact, most
industrialized countries. Many factors explain this transition,
the most notable being the changing structure of international
trade, the speed of technological development and the
generalization of government policies and the changes made to
them.
[English]
This trend is likely to continue at a rapid pace over the current
decade. Trade liberalization offers numerous opportunities for
trade development. New technologies offer tremendous
opportunities for productivity improvement in all sectors of the
economy and in all phases of the production process. All of
these will open new opportunities for Atlantic Canadian
producers and entrepreneurs, but will also translate into
increased and intense competition on domestic and world
markets.
Governments increasingly constrained by mounting debt
loads are forced to rethink their role and review social and
economic programs. Speaking of learning from history, that is
what this government is doing and that is what it is doing
particularly through the mode of ACOA.
First let me talk about the comprehensive approach to the
economic development of the Atlantic economy. Regional
economic development programs are not immune from this
review process and ACOA is currently defining new corporate
directions.
The current government recognizes that strong regional
economies are the building blocks for a strong Canadian
economy. However, a new and more innovative approach to
regional development needs to be developed, taking into
consideration the global environment and tight fiscal
constraints. Job creation will be the prime guiding principle for
this new approach. This fulfils the promises we made in the red
book and it is part and parcel of the philosophy and the base of
this Liberal government.
Small and medium sized enterprises, SMEs, will be the focus
of ACOA's programming and initiatives. The general approach
will be to build on the expertise of all agents for economic
development. This calls for economic co-operation, joint action
and integrated development at the regional level.
(1555)
Strong emphasis will be put on public sector and private
sector partnering and the mobilization of scarce resources
necessary to achieve strong regional economies and help
regional firms and industries meet the challenges of
international competition and change.
Second, we have to improve co-ordination among federal and
provincial governments. A major regional development priority
of this government is to work closely with provincial
governments to ensure that the federal government is a partner
in the formulation of regional development.
[Translation]
A second guiding principle given for job creation is as
follows: in conjunction with provincial governments, we will
try to reach the goals set in the strategic economic plan by
focusing our efforts on tourism infrastructure, on commercial
applications of research and development in local institutions
and on assistance directed particularly at small businesses.
The government also recognizes that it is imperative to take at
the regional level some action to improve co-ordination and
effectiveness under the present circumstances of fiscal
restraints and a heavy debt load.
There must be a greater harmonization of efforts and actions
by the federal government and the provinces in the area of
regional development. In view of its size and population, the
Atlantic region will be able to compete more effectively on the
world market if it integrates its economy, harmonize its
strategies and co-ordinate its activities on a regional basis.
ACOA has already taken the first steps by establishing such
co-operative efforts at the regional level. Partnership with the
tourism industry in Atlantic Canada, which was talked about
earlier, is an eloquent example of that.
I also just recently announced an important measure on trade
in the whole region, that is the co-operation agreement between
Canada and the Atlantic provinces. That measure deals with the
promotion of external trade. It will unite the four Atlantic
provinces, ACOA, Industry Canada and Foreign Affairs and
International Trade, in their efforts to help small and medium
business in capturing export markets.
However, it is possible to do even more and, in order to do so,
the president of ACOA conducts a forum of deputy ministers
responsible for economic development in the provinces. This
forum has the mandate of harmonizing even more the
development efforts in the Atlantic region.
[English]
Improving government services to small and medium sized
business is a high priority for this government. In ``Creating
Opportunity'' this government pledged to review regional
development programs and grants to business to ensure that they
reflect a commitment to streamline government operations and
eliminate duplication, to provide better support to commercial
applications of R and D, to export oriented industries, and to
small and medium sized businesses.
To this effect ACOA has established a Canada Business
Service Centre in Halifax. One is currently being set up in
Fredericton. Plans call for two other centres, in St. John's and in
Charlottetown. These will serve as one stop shops for all federal
and provincial government assistance to business. These centres
will help improve considerably the delivery of assistance to
these businesses.
4787
There is currently numerous overlap and duplication in
programs and services among federal departments and between
provincial and federal governments. The CBSCs as well as the
harmonization process between the federal government and
provinces will contribute significantly toward elimination and
reduction of overlap and duplication.
ACOA as the government's primary industry for supporting
small business in Atlantic Canada is well placed to play a lead
role.
[Translation]
The emphasis will be put on the creation of permanent jobs as
well as on the economic renewal, through the infrastructure
program.
(1600)
We expect that 7,500 jobs will be created in the Atlantic
region during the first two years of the infrastructure program.
This program is making good progress and to date, 164 projects
have been announced, representing a federal contribution of
over $72 million earmarked for projects worth almost $200
million. This will create a little over 2,500 jobs.
Effective infrastructures will be put in place to attract
industries to the communities. This new way of doing things
will lead to increased competitiveness, a positive adjustment of
the declining sectors, and a maximization of new opportunities.
ACOA, together with other federal departments, the
provincial governments and its partners in the private sector,
will concentrate its efforts on improving the competitiveness of
the businesses in the Atlantic region so that they can compete on
regional, domestic and international markets. To achieve this,
ACOA will target the aid for adopting and adapting high
technology processes and information technology as well as
developing human resources to improve the quality of labour
management and finally allow companies in the Atlantic region
to exist and to grow in today's highly competitive environment.
[English]
One example of the type of innovative small company which
the agency intends to target is Holland Stafford of
Charlottetown which has become a leader in seafaring
technology. This company has recently developed hundreds of
new patterns for boat propellers by incorporating the latest
technological developments and using new computerized design
methods. This expertise has enabled the company to
successfully expand into international markets for these
products, as I am sure my colleague from Egmont would agree.
Another example is Eastland Industries in Minto, New
Brunswick which has set up a new computerized assembly line
of production machinery. This innovation has helped it expand
its sales of European style cabinets and countertops to the
Atlantic and New England markets.
Rationalization is occurring in all traditional industries: pulp
and paper, fisheries and mining. As a result, employment in
these industries has been declining. The transportation sector,
notably railways, has also been shedding unprofitable activities
which will also result in job losses.
The demilitarization ensuing from the end of the communist
regime in eastern Europe is resulting in the closure and
downsizing of many bases in Atlantic Canada. This has been
accompanied by the loss of military and civilian jobs.
ACOA is taking a lead role in working with other federal
departments, provincial governments and the affected
communities to put in place development to replace these jobs.
Some funds will soon be available to help communities get
organized and develop and implement projects. ACOA's regular
programs will of course be available to assist businesses seeking
to establish or expand in these communities.
Trade liberalization, as reflected by the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade, the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement and
the NAFTA and, to a lesser extent, the economic integration of
the European community, offer numerous new opportunities for
Atlantic firms.
ACOA will put significant emphasis on trade development so
that entrepreneurs in Atlantic Canada can take full advantage of
opportunities arising from trade globalization.
A proactive approach will be adopted to support sectors and
firms which have high growth potential. There will be a focus on
high growth potential sectors such as communications and
information technology, health industries and pharmaceuticals,
geomagnetics in space. Development at the firm level will be
encouraged through such measures as diagnostic services,
benchmarking and strategic planning.
Another example of a small company that has been able to
penetrate export markets is Day Industrial and Minetech
Incorporated in Cape Breton. The company has developed a long
lasting, durable lamp for Cape Breton coal mines. It now sells its
products to mining and other markets in Canada, the United
States, Australia, Europe, South Africa and South America.
Some of our friends across the way do not think that this is a
good way to invest in Canadians. I think that is a shame.
Ultima East of St. John's, Newfoundland has developed into a
world leader in the development of access technology for
mobile satellite data networks. Satellite Communications is a
global industry and the company has developed a large foreign
4788
market, including Brazil, Norway and the United States. Ultima
East has rapidly emerged as a success in a highly technical and
competitive field. Started in 1985, Ultimate East and its parent
company, New East, now employ 50 people, but hey, why should
we put money into ACOA?
(1605)
ACOA with other federal partners and the provinces has also a
major role to play in maximizing the benefits from major
projects such as the Northumberland Strait crossing project, the
link, or as some of us like to call it, the span of green cables, and
in helping deploy effectively the workers who will be displaced
from cessation of the ferry service. The link will be unique in
North America and world class. It will cost about $800 million
to build and generate 5,000 person years of employment, 2,000
during the peak employment period.
The project will offer numerous regional benefits in terms of
procurement, including goods, services and labour, significant
investment opportunities and spin-off activities. The developer
is committed under the regional benefit agreement to procure 70
per cent of goods, materials and services and 96 per cent of
labour content from Atlantic Canada. I think that is a great idea.
I think the member for Egmont would agree with me.
Mr. McGuire: I agree.
Ms. Clancy: I would bet even the member for
Guelph-Wellington would agree with me.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Agreed.
Ms. Clancy: The agencies major objectives are to help ensure
that the construction of the project contributes to ACOA's major
corporate objectives of long term job creation and attracting
new industries, to help ensure that the developer complies with
the regional benefit agreement, to help mitigate the negative
impact of the cessation of the marine Atlantic operation, to help
minimize negative effects on marine Atlantic workers displaced
by the construction of the fixed link, to help maximize
development opportunities and benefits for the Borden area of
Prince Edward Island and the Cape Tormentine area of New
Brunswick arising from the Northumberland Strait crossing
project.
The federal government is committed to providing $20
million to fund development activities in these areas. As a
maritimer, as an Atlantic Canadian, I say hooray.
[Translation]
Like the other Canadian provinces, those in Atlantic Canada
must face the major stakes created by the world economy which
has become more and more competitive because of trade
globalization and free trade. Moreover, Canadians from the
Atlantic region must deal with a new reality: a systematic
structural transformation of some major industries like the
groundfish fisheries.
If ACOA really wants to help the area to cope with the
situation, it must absolutely use the meagre monetary resources
it has in the best possible manner.
The agency favours direct support of those sectors and
companies which hold the most promise in terms of permanent
jobs creation for Canadians of the Atlantic region. This
government is determined to make the best possible use of its
meagre resources by eliminating duplication and overlapping in
services and programs offered to businesses and by reducing the
number of departments and agencies providing those services.
Besides, the agency will continue to improve the efficiency of
public investments by obtaining a greater commitment from the
private sector towards the development of small and
medium-sized businesses. But it is also the agency's
responsibility to administer the resources allocated to it in the
most effective way possible.
Discussions about the necessity for Canadian businesses to
improve their productivity to allow the country to be more
competitive on the markets have become commonplace.
However, the improvement of productivity is very important for
the overall competitiveness of the country. The government is
determined to improve the effectiveness of the bureaucracy, and
I can tell you that any other private or public organization would
die to be able to show results comparable to those of ACOA.
(1610)
[English]
The agency's move to focus its activities on improving the
competitiveness of small and medium sized business is more
credible because ACOA has demonstrated it has an
understanding of what is needed to improve efficiency and the
benefits that are possible.
Over the last three years ACOA has been able to reduce
corporate administration costs as a percentage of total agency
costs by 20 per cent. The agency is forecasting a further drop of
25 per cent and so costs are expected to be only 3 per cent this
year of total costs.
Part of this government's commitment to creating
opportunity has been to look at the relevance of all bodies and
recommend elimination or downsizing.
Shortly after taking charge of the agency a study was
commissioned by Dr. Donald Savoie of the ACOA advisory
board. The study was made available by the minister to the
public. The recommendations are now being considered and he
will soon be making recommendations in a number of areas,
including the issue of streamlining the board's operation.
4789
The savings which have been achieved and those which are
able to come will potentially allow a transfer of funds from
operating costs to contributions in support of SME growth and
competitiveness.
We in Atlantic Canada are very happy with ACOA. We are
very happy as members of Parliament for Atlantic Canada and as
Canadian members of Parliament that this government is
committed to the regional development of every part of the
country. The best and happiest Canadians are those with
economic security. This government and ACOA know how to
put that in motion.
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont): Madam Speaker, I want
first to thank the member for Halifax for her efforts to speak
French.
[Translation]
I know that the member has a lot of experience in this House.
When she was in the opposition, I heard her talking about the
Atlantic development agency. Besides, I was Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology
when the act on that department was voted on, and I remember
there were a lot of criticism of what was done.
The government has now been in power for six months.
Today, in order to justify the work done by her government, the
parliamentary secretary gives us a list of businesses which
received grants, obviously before her government came into
office.
However, I am happy to see that she thinks that having a
regional development agency for Atlantic Canada is a good
decision taken by the Conservatives because Canada is
becoming more and more a country of economic regions where
the market trends are more and more south-north and
north-south than east-west.
However, I have to admit that nothing was said about
Hibernia. This is incredible. If we were to put in the bank all the
money spent on Hibernia, we would have enough money for the
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency for the next 100 years.
We would get hundreds of millions each year in interest alone on
the money we are going to waste. What is the government
doing? Nothing. We are wasting billions of dollars for
something which has no viable future. It is unbelievable.
The parliamentary secretary is telling us about duplication
and overlapping. She should thank Quebec for putting this on
the agenda and making it a major issue. Clearly, in the years to
come we will be less and less able to afford duplication and
overlapping between the federal and provincial governments.
Those who wish to stay within Canada can try to come to an
agreement with the federal government to limit duplication.
However, when we talk about harmonizing it means that
someone has decided to harmonize as he or she sees fit. That is
exactly what the federal government is doing with respect to
manpower despite the fact that, in Quebec, all stakeholders
have agreed that Quebec should be responsible for manpower
training.
However, the federal government has been refusing for years.
We are promised agreement after agreement, but nothing ever
comes about. What the government is seeking is not
harmonization but centralization. Yet, we know that in order to
have endogenous development in the regions they need
resources. They need to have, locally, the right, the power, and
the capacity to undertake projects without the federal big
brother who thinks he can always do better than anyone else.
This is the problem in this country.
(1615)
If the Liberal point of view had a purpose, with the huge
amount of money invested in the Maritimes, this would be
heaven on earth. The role of the federal government in regional
development has a purpose.
Ms. Clancy: Absolutely.
Mr. Tremblay: Maybe. The parliamentary secretary thinks
Atlantic Canada is heaven on earth; maybe for her it is, but for
the thousands of unemployed, for example those who have to
move, it is certainly not a paradise. There is considerable work
to be done and we think people can do better locally than
whatever the civil servants could do here in Ottawa.
We also think that Fisheries and Oceans officials would be
better off in Newfoundland than in Ottawa. Of course the federal
government always thinks it can do better.
There is another very important point the parliamentary
secretary forgot in her speech and it concerns the regional
economy of the Atlantic region and Montreal. What is the
government planning to do for the conversion? It certainly has a
role to play in this issue since it was the one to give out the
contracts. We all know that defence programs will decrease in
importance because the government is getting out. Therefore,
we must make sure that conversion programs from military to
civilian use are implemented. We have been fighting for weeks
here in the House for such measures. There even was an
opposition day on that issue. The military economy is still
important today; companies producing military equipment are
very important in the Atlantic region. But the speech says
nothing about that.
They refer to successful projects, projects that produced good
results during the Tory mandate and they say: ``Look at these
achievements; that is what the Liberals want to do''. Meanwhile,
they continue to forget the true role of the federal government in
the conversion of military industries into civilian ones. That is
the government's responsibility; the American government
accomplished that very well by the way.
4790
So if we want regional development in the Atlantic region, we
must let the local people decide for themselves. We must stop
spending billions of our taxpayers' money on stupid projects
like Hibernia and we must immediately implement a conversion
program for military industries.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would like to remind
members that this is a question and comment period; we are not
on debate.
Mr. Tremblay: This was a comment, Madam Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): If I may say so, it was a
very lengthy comment.
Mrs. Clancy: Madam Speaker, the member's comments are
not causing me any problem; I accept them at face value.
[English]
I would like to say a couple of things. First, if the hon.
member would like to have a debate on the principles and the
reasons for the setting up of Hibernia I suggest that he bring it
forward. I would be delighted to debate him on that topic at any
time.
However, I came today to talk about regional development in
general, and ACOA being the vehicle for that that was the reason
that I decided to use ACOA. I understand that the hon. members
of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition are not perhaps aware of
what really happens in Atlantic Canada. As an Atlantic
Canadian member of Parliament it is my duty to make them
aware of it.
I believe that Atlantic Canada is a heaven on earth due to long
time Liberal policies. To make it a true heaven on earth, it would
perhaps be wise if some people would stop trying to rip the heart
out of my country.
To get back to the point I made before to the hon. member, I
am glad that he remembers his previous role in a government
which pursued, I might add, a scorched earth policy in Atlantic
Canada. Those days are over. It is unusual for members of le
Bloc to remember that their birth came from the Progressive
Conservative government that did such damage in Atlantic
Canada. I think it is quite honest and shows a level of integrity in
the hon. member that he admits his role in that pernicious
government with its pernicious policies and that he is obviously
prepared to seek some sort of absolution from those of us in
Atlantic Canada.
He is not going to get it. He certainly is not going to get it from
me. What he is going to get is good policy, job creation and a
belief in every region of this Canada; Atlantic Canada, Quebec,
Ontario, the prairies, the west and the north. One country united,
indivisible. As I have said the heart in the province of Quebec
remains strong.
(1620)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): One short question from
the hon. member for Vegreville.
Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Madam Speaker, does that
mean that I cannot ask all three of them?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry. That is the
unfortunate part about long comments.
Mr. Benoit: I will make the question very brief to the hon.
parliamentary secretary.
First, have the billions and billions of dollars spent on
programs for regional development in the maritimes and the
dozens of programs helped the maritimes to the extent that they
are equal with other provinces in Canada in terms of their
economy?
The second is a comment made by the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Industry earlier that Alberta and
B.C. had given over $100 billion more than they had received
from the coffers into the federal government coffers. In fact the
figure should be between $100 and $160 billion in Alberta. Does
the member think that Albertans are willing to give more?
Finally, I would like a response to this very brief quote: ``A
reliance on granterpreneurship as opposed to entrepreneurship
has fostered artificial local competition and created distortions
in local markets''.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, I would like
to give the hon. member a few seconds to respond.
Ms. Clancy: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's
question. I would although ask him to use words that I am
familiar with in either of the two official languages.
Mr. Benoit: They are from the red book.
Ms. Clancy: There is no such word as granterpreneurship.
Mr. Benoit: That quote is from your red book.
Ms. Clancy: Madam Speaker, do something about him, will
you. I did not think I was going to have to come here and give
lessons in history but obviously the Reform Party needs it. If he
wants to know about the history of this country and what
Atlantic Canadians have given in dollars he might talk to his pal
across the aisle who did have a history in Atlantic Canada.
He might want to know for example when I brought it up to his
friend from the Kootenays earlier today that for over 20 years
Atlantic Canadians paid an extra $5 over world price on every
barrel of their oil to go directly, my learned friend, into the
coffers of the Alberta government to build the oil industry in
Alberta.
Nova Scotians, New Brunswickers, P.E. Islanders and
Newfoundlanders after their entry into Confederation did it with
joy because we are one country. We believe in transfer
payments. We believe in equalization payments and we are
going to do it whether the hon. member likes it or not.
4791
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata):
Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part in the
debate on regional development. I really appreciate today's
motion by my friend and colleague from
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. I must remind you that
regional development is first and foremost a regional
responsibility. In my riding of eastern Quebec, as elsewhere in
Quebec and in Canada, people know their territory and its
resources and how to develop them. Very often, they need only a
little bit of money and the support of the local government.
However, yesterday, in preparation for this debate, my staff
contacted various spokespersons in my riding. They all said the
same thing: ``The region has its resources and governments,
rather than listening to us in order to help us develop them, do
what they please and more often than not fight it out among
themselves at our expense obviously''. Other people have
denounced the attitude of the federal government which not only
encroaches on areas of provincial jurisdiction, but also often
takes initiatives diametrically opposed to the will of the local
and provincial governments.
However, with an unemployment rate of 27.3 per cent in the
Gaspé Peninsula and of 17.6 per cent in the Lower St. Lawrence
district, efficiency is now a must. In my riding, for example, we
have ideas on how to create jobs by using our natural resources
like the forest, agriculture or manufacturing resources. We have
projects for processing plants, and so forth.
(1625)
Moreover, very often, the federal government has shown in
the last few years its total lack of understanding of the regions'
needs. On December 5, 1990, the president and CEO of the CBC,
Gérard Veilleux, announced the closing of the CJBRT station in
Rimouski, CBGAT in Matane, CBST in Sept-Îles, for a total of
about 150 jobs in eastern Quebec and lost wages of almost two
million. Not only did we see families leave the area and the
regional economy lose these two million-and this is a very
large sum for a region such as eastern Quebec-but our
shopkeepers, our community lost at the same time a very
important means of communication. Now, to hear about the
eastern part of Quebec on CBC television broadcast from
Quebec city, we must be on the lookout since it is often
sandwiched between news concerning Quebec's mayor and his
disputes with the mayor of Sainte-Foy on the program ``Ce
soir''. Sometimes there is something about the eastern part of
Quebec.
Let us not forget also the bad federal decisions made by the
Trudeau government which seem to have benefited the
Maritimes. There was a bad decision about Mirabel and another
one, taken by the minister of the day, member for Matane, about
the Maurice Lamontagne Institute, which was located in
Sainte-Flavie when it should have been in Pointe-au-Père. An
$18 million wharf was constructed, but no ship ever drew
alongside it since there is nothing to protect those that would. In
the meantime, the wharf at Pointe-au-Père is rotted out but we
do not have the million dollars needed to pull it down, even
though it is a public hazard.
The CBC pulled $46 million out of the regions when it closed
11 regional stations across Canada. I remind members that that
restructuration cost quite a few million dollars, more exactly
$138.5 million, not to mention the fact that the CBC's deficit is
far from under control.
Our regions remember this episode vividly, especially the fact
that the first thought of the management of the CBC was to cut
regional services. This set an example that was repeated many
times over.
Another significant example of the lack of respect paid to
regions was the closing of post offices. Imagine the contempt of
Quebecers or rural Canadians whose post offices are being
closed, despite their very important role in the community. The
current government has indeed declared a moratorium on post
office closures, but it has not committed itself to reopening the
post offices which were closed by its predecessor, and people in
my riding who were contacted by my office yesterday and who
are working on this issue are not at all sure that the post offices
will remain open once the moratorium is lifted. On the contrary,
some have told us that Canada Post's current lobby would
ultimately succeed.
VIA Rail is another example. The government boasts about its
infrastructure program, but at the same time, it keeps
dismantling other important infrastructures such as VIA Rail
when we all know how railways, in regions like ours, do make a
vital contribution to the Eastern Quebec economy.
Another example of this government's sensitivity is the
National Film Board's decision to close its regional offices. The
Carrousel du film, a major festival in the area of audio-visual
production for children and the only one of its kind in America,
has also been targeted for severe budget cuts. Telefilm, which
must reduce its funding of various programs because of cuts
imposed by the government, has decided to focus more on large
festivals, or those held in big cities. The Carrousel du film,
which is a regional festival, will therefore be subjected to cuts.
This internationally recognized festival promotes productions
for children, a key sector which meets the objectives of
acquainting children with quality movies. But, here again, our
unfeeling government did not hesitate to make cuts.
(1630)
Those are only a few examples of what the implementation of
so-called national policies leads to. Such policies are dreamed
up in a city by city-dwelling bureaucrats and civil servants who
do not have the slightest idea of the concerns of people in remote
areas.
4792
The first consequence of the deplorable failure of federalism
in the remote areas of Quebec is the exodus of adults and young
people alike. If you refer to a publication of the Rimouski
community health department, called Optique Santé, you will
find some fascinating information. The 1991 census shows that
the Quebec population has increased by 5.6 per cent, whereas
the Lower St. Lawrence is loosing its population and shows a net
loss of 2.7 per cent.
This overall drop in the Lower St. Lawrence population is due
to a negative balance of migration. Such emigration is one of the
main causes of the aging of these communities since it is the
most mobile inhabitants who leave, namely the young people
and the adults. In short, the failure of the federal regional
development policy has had a severe impact on the demographic
decline of the Lower St. Lawrence. People in that area will speak
loud and clear during the upcoming election and referendum.
This morning, our ability to read was questioned so, to
conclude, I would like to quote from John Naisbitt's book
entitled Global Paradox. According to the jacket blurb, he is
supposed to be quite a genius.
[English]
``In the hallmark of genius is simplicity that Naisbitt has
brilliantly presented a work which reasonably addresses the
challenges of the future while providing the chart for successful
navigation''.
[Translation]
I will now quote the author.
[English]
The breakup of countries (artificially put together) into national or tribal
entities is surely as beneficial as the breakup of companies. It eliminates
duplication and waste, reduces bureaucracy and promotes motivation and
accountability, and results in self-rule (subsidiary) at the most basic level-just
like in companies.
[
Translation]
This is what the Chilean Minister of Finance has to say about
him:
[English]
``John Naisbitt's new book is visionary. His predictions will
be, as they have been before, right on target''.
[Translation]
Quebec's objective is quite laudable. English Canada has not
yet understood that we have had enough of not having the
necessary resources to fully develop our potential. So Atlantic
Canada is a paradise on earth, let it keep on developing! So
western Canada has all it needs for its development! Ontario,
where most of this government comes from, is still not
understanding what is going on in the rest of Canada. But
nothing will deter us from our one and only goal: Quebec
sovereignty.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Madam Speaker, I found the speech of the hon.
member for Rimouski-Témiscouata very interesting.
However, she did not mention the private sector. She only
mentioned the CBC, VIA Rail, the Film Festival, the NFB. She
did not talk about private enterprises, but she mentioned one
author, someone who argues that the state should be managed
like a private company. We have seen the results with the
Conservatives and some members of the Bloc. If she really
wants to talk about job creation, she should give us some
examples in the private sector.
I must also point out that the Federal Office of Regional
Development is precisely located in the beautiful city of
Rimouski. I believe that the hon. member will have the
opportunity to talk with these people and to set up a real program
of economic development instead of complaining to her
colleagues, here in the House.
(1635)
Mrs. Tremblay: I met the director of the Federal Office of
Regional Development in my riding. He told me that the
cupboard was bare. I do not mind talking in this House, but when
I am told that there are only $2 million left for the Lower St.
Lawrence, the Gaspé Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands, I say
that the cupboard is bare.
We are told about the development of small and
medium-sized enterprises, but I am still waiting for the list of
those created since this government took office. There are no
business opportunities to talk about in my riding. All I have,
daily, are people joining the ranks of those on unemployment
insurance or welfare. There are no businesses developing.
Of course, the restaurant La Cage aux sports will open on June
15, but I do not call that an extraordinary economic development
of the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé Peninsula. Sure, this
will be on more establishment, but this will only divide the
profits. There are plenty of restaurants in my riding, so the
opening of this one will cause another to close or will divide the
profits. People are moving out, because there are no jobs. We are
waiting for jobs, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would like to remind
the hon. members that comments must also be addressed to the
Chair.
As you only have about one minute left, I will give the floor to
hon. member for Durham.
4793
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Madam Speaker, I would like
to ask a couple of questions of the hon. member.
First, she talked about post office closures. She and some
other members talked today about the reductions in UI benefits
and so forth as some kind of a failure of our federal system. At
the same time she complained about the deficit. Her party
complains about the deficit, that this is a tax on the backs of the
people of Quebec.
I wonder how you can have it both ways. How can we try to
control the deficit by some of these manoeuvres and at the same
time be blamed for not dealing with the deficit problems. I find
this a terrible inconsistency in their philosophy.
Second, I would like to pick up on one of their other members,
the member for Abitibi, who talked about the empowerment of
some of the local regional municipalities. Would she support a
philosophy that paid regional transfer payments and rather than
sending them to the province of Quebec actually sent them to the
regional municipalities in Quebec.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
you. Your question should be directed to the previous speaker.
[Translation]
Mrs. Tremblay: Madam Speaker, the question takes me by
surprise because my remarks had nothing to do with what the
hon. member is talking about. There was no mention of deficit
reduction in my remarks. This point has been made to another
hon. member earlier, but as far as I am concerned, I never raised
the issue.
Deficit reduction is the least of my worries. My main concern
at this time is to ensure that people are afforded the dignity of
getting up in the morning, facing themselves in the mirror and
setting off to got to work, instead of getting depressed because
they have nothing to eat or no job. What we need, Madam
Speaker, is jobs. This government crows about jobs, but does not
create any. It produces fine speeches, but no jobs. What I want is
job creation.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Madam Speaker, as member
representing Lévis and the Quebec region, I am pleased to
participate in this special debate on regional development
initiated by the Official Opposition.
I think it may be useful at this stage of the debate to read again
the motion before us, which was put forward by the hon. member
for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. It reads as follows:
That this House condemn the federal government's ineffective regional
development interventions, which create overlappings and inconsistencies,
resulting in an administrative chaos that hampers regional economic growth.
Madam Speaker, the members of the current federal
government rack their brains only to recall the good shots of the
previous Liberal government in terms of regional development.
(1640)
Some members like the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood-he is from Ontario-even got the
feeling that Quebec was living off the federal government, that
it owed its very survival to the federal government's support. I
could quote other comments, but my point is the following: if
Quebec costs so much in terms of unemployment insurance,
social assistance, regional assistance and so on, what is the point
of insisting, as this government does, on Quebec remaining a
part of this Confederation? One wonders.
Figures speak louder than feelings. Therefore, I would like to
recall a few. Between 1989 and 1994, according to the figures
from the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, the
Atlantic provinces received $920 per person for regional
development; Western Canada, $240; and Quebec, $230, which
is less than Western Canada and much less than the Maritimes.
The hon. member said that Quebec seemed to be the main
beneficiary of regional development but, as we can see, Western
Canada and the Maritimes received four times as much. Ontario
receives $30 per resident but-as everyone recognizes and I
think Ontarians must recognize it, too-Ontario is the main
beneficiary of the federalist system.
Why? First of all, the presence of the public service, as well as
all the money spent on AECL, on the Toronto Airport, over the
years. There is also the defence industry. While Quebec was
getting subsidies for small business, for bicycles in the Beauce
region, Ontario's auto industry was doing very well and the
military tank industry, even better.
The hon. member for Bonaventure said something earlier
about how impressive business subsidies are. I did some
calculations and in the provincial riding of Lévis, which is split
in two at the provincial level, in what is called the regional
county municipality of Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, which is my
local economic development corporation, they estimated the
impact of federal funds on the economic development of this
riding at less than 1 per cent. One per cent of the regional
economy comes from the federal government. They then try to
convince us that Quebec would not have been able to develop its
regions without the federal government's help. This
disproportion is unacceptable.
Beyond figures-we could argue over figures for a long
time-what is Quebec organizations' main complaint against
the federal government's actions? I am not talking about the
Bloc Quebecois but about the claims made by organizations in
books and forums. They say that, basically, the main
shortcoming of the federal government is that it does not hold
enough consultations with the regional organizations already in
place. Federal departments do not even hold enough
consultations among themselves before taking action, so that
most of the time the action only involves one sector.
I will give you an example. In the rail industry, they say it is
expensive to maintain CN services but they do not consider the
impact this will have on Quebec roads.
4794
(1645)
Let me give you an example. At certain times, a passenger
train represents the equivalent of 17,000 automobiles on the
road. These are the figures of the Quebec Department of
Transport. When the idea is entertained of abandoning certain
lines such as the Murray Bay line in the Charlevoix region and a
number of other lines leading to the Beauce region, no
consideration is given to the impact this could have on road
infrastructures. This is what I mean by short-sighted sectoral
intervention.
Another problem is maps. Federal government department
maps do not jibe with one another, or for that matter, with
provincial or regional municipality maps.
Apparently that is the case. Another area which we hear a
great deal about but about which little is written is the Youth
Service Corps. The member for Bonaventure has given me a
striking illustration of the problem. While in Winnipeg, the
minister announced the creation of four pilot projects, each with
a budget of $100,000. However, one of the four projects was
given a budget of $600,000. In which riding did this pilot project
happen to be? Surprise, the member for Bonaventure's riding.
That is what was announced in the minister's press release
issued in Winnipeg. Check it out for yourselves.
Moving on, I would like to speak a little about the Quebec
City area which, on a provincial level, is divided into two major
regions, the combined population of which exceeds 900,000.
Until now, the tertiary sector has been front and centre.
Allow me to quickly mention one case, that of MIL Davie.
Here is an extraordinary opportunity for the federal government
to intervene in the field of regional development. Before the
Liberal Party came to power, this sector represented $150
million in wages. It also represented $600 million in economic
spin-offs for the Quebec City area. The region has been waiting
for six months for a decision on the awarding of transitional
contracts for the Magdalen Islands ferry and for the smart ship.
Another important issue, apart from rail transportation which
I have already mentioned, is the Quebec City airport. We have
been waiting for years for action in this area. When the
Conservatives were in office, they had a small sign erected
proclaiming this facility to be Jean Lesage International
Airport. However, the only thing that is international about this
bush-league airport is the wording on its sign.
As for the municipal convention centre, the project got going
only very recently. It took years! The communications problem
raised by the hon. member for Rimouski also affects us, because
the resources we had before which were exclusive to the Quebec
City area must now be shared with the regions in eastern Quebec
and the North Shore.
There is also the problem of the Port of Quebec. It is
experiencing a tremendous decline. Why? Because goods are
now shipped west, and their transportation is subsidized. Just
reread the agreement on Crow's Nest subsidies. Yes, I know that
was when the Conservatives were in power, but it still goes on.
There are the ports of refuge. The same thing goes in
Saint-Jean-Port-Joli and in Portneuf: the federal government
does not even maintain its own equipment and it has become
dangerous to go near it.
I would like to conclude by saying that the urban region of
Quebec City has not done too badly, in the end, but the problem
we see in the outlying regions of Bellechasse, Portneuf and
Charlevoix is the same as in the Lower St. Lawrence and the
Gaspé Peninsula. But there are also large areas of poverty even
in downtown Quebec, to which I think the Liberal government
has so far shown great indifference.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It is my duty, pursuant
to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to
be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi-Association
Canadienne-Française de l'Ontario.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Madam
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
I would like to start by pointing out the blatant contradiction
in the position of the Official Opposition. On the one hand the
Bloc argues that federal intervention is ineffective for Quebec's
economic development. On the other hand it criticizes the
federal government for cutting back on the budgets of the
regional agencies. It cannot continue to have it both ways.
Liberals believe that federal programs from unemployment
insurance, to health care, to community development, to
education, to regional development can and do assist each and
every region in Canada to grow and prosper.
(1650)
From the perspective of western Canada it can be said that the
concept of a regional economic development agency based to
promote western interests is crucial in terms of diversifying the
4795
economic base of western Canada in creating jobs, increasing
our international trade and in obtaining a greater share of federal
contracts.
Many people in western Canada have come to identify
western diversification as the voice of the west in Ottawa, a
department which has done a great deal to ensure that western
Canada's interests are always taken into account in the national
decision making process.
Western diversification assists western businesses to get
equal access to major government contracts not by interfering in
the process but by ensuring that there is fairness and equity
involved in the awards, that the contracts go to the businesses
with the best technology and the best people capable of
providing a quality product.
I am sure members will all agree many of those high quality
companies and people are based in the west, making a major
contribution to the economic strength, not just of western
Canada, but of the nation as a whole.
The western share of industrial and regional benefits from
major federal procurement contracts has risen from just over 7
per cent in 1988 to just about 35 per cent today, representing
some $1.7 billion.
I would also like to commend the Minister of Western
Economic Diversification for the work he has done in bringing
the western provinces together to the table to look at pan western
initiatives which will prove of enormous benefit to the economy
of the region and the nation as well. He has taken the lead in
saying to the provinces that we should work together in the spirit
of co-operation because the government recognizes that
co-operation at all levels of government is essential to
achieving and maintaining a strong economy not subject to the
ebb and flow of international commodity prices, but one which
is developed from the strength of the region's people, its skills,
and its natural resources.
This kind of co-operation between governments does not
create overlap but rather enables all levels to maximize the
return on their investment of taxpayers' dollars.
As the member for Saskatoon-Dundurn I know first hand of
the importance of diversifying the economic base of
Saskatchewan. Biotechnology is now a flourishing industry in
Saskatoon thanks in part to the assistance given by western
diversification, the NRC and other federal programs that
appreciate that Saskatoon has the necessary human skills as
anywhere else in Canada. We are building a niche in agricultural
biotechnology that is unsurpassed but it is only possible because
of the partnerships that are being facilitated by the federal
government.
Western diversification is also working closely with business,
labour, educational and other institutions for the betterment of
the economic well-being of western Canada and the nation as a
whole. If western Canada is strong all of Canada benefits and the
same holds true for Quebec, Ontario and the Atlantic.
Repayable assistance for small and medium sized businesses
by western diversification has helped more than 4,000 projects
get off the ground and has created or maintained over 40,000
jobs.
I know that my colleagues from the Reform Party would
rather wipe out this kind of assistance but as my government
colleagues have already pointed out with many compelling
examples from across the country, by helping some of those
innovative entrepreneurs get their foot through the door
opportunities that otherwise would be lost are instead being
created.
Although working with business in this regard is still a major
role I believe the department's advocacy role and its
increasingly close ties with the provinces and municipalities are
both key to the future strength of western Canada.
(1655 )
Our infrastructure program is a compelling example of the
importance of such partnerships. Strategic initiatives such as
information networks which ensure economic and business
information are shared across the west. Other initiatives such as
an agri-food initiative which will increase the export of value
added food products and benefit farmers and food producers
across western Canada and the rest of the nation can only be
regarded as positive and proof indeed that western
diversification is not only working as a concept but is making a
very real, very positive contribution to the nation's economic
strength.
The motion calls on the House to condemn ineffective
regional development interventions. This Liberal government is
working actively to improve and strengthen regional
development initiatives across Canada. Indeed we were elected
on our policies which include the following commitment in our
red book:
We see strong regional economies as the building blocks of Canada. One of
the most important ways of making this happen is to develop forums for
economic co-operation, joint action and integrated development at the regional
level.
This is the approach that we are embracing and promoting. I
do not support the opposition motion, as I believe that our
federal interventions in regional development are essential to
strengthening the social and economic fabric of Canada today
and in the future.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville): Madam Speaker, the hon.
member who just presented gave a quote from the red book. I
would like to give a quote from the red book that I gave earlier:
A reliance on ``granterpreneurship'', as opposed to entrepreneurship, has
fostered artificial local competition and created distortions in local markets.
4796
That is a quote from the Liberal red book and that is the part of
the quote that you left out from the quote that you just presented
to us. I think the hon. member maybe should consider that in his
comments.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I would ask the hon.
member to address his comments to the Chair.
Mr. Benoit: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask some
questions about western diversification.
The hon. member has mentioned some success stories, at least
in his mind they are success stories, and I would like to ask about
some other people, for example the local owner of a sausage
plant in my constituency who has been competing and been
struggling but he is making a go of it. This family business as a
sausage plant has had to compete with a sausage plant down the
road that has received western diversification money. This is
unfair competition with his tax dollars that he has paid to the
government to help support the competition.
I would like to ask the hon. member if he feels that is fair.
What about the two local businesses, the largest businesses in
our neighbouring town, that are funded through western
diversification, both now out of business and have left the town
grasping for something to replace them and it is not there.
What about the swather manufacturing business in
Saskatchewan, a very successful business, which was forced to
compete against a swather manufacturing plant funded with
western diversification money. The result was they both went
out of business because of this unfair competition.
I would like to ask the hon. member what about those
businesses and what about Albertans who have paid $100 billion
to $165 billion more in tax dollars through the national energy
program and through transfer payments to the federal
government than they received over the past 25 years. Is it fair to
those Alberta taxpayers to be funding these programs in other
provinces?
Mr. Bodnar: Madam Speaker, we have reference to the red
book again. I am very pleased that the members of the Reform
Party are making such good use of the red book since I trust that
it will go down in history as one of the finest productions that
made in the political history of this country. It is nice to hear that
they continue to refer to it. I am pleased they have referred to it.
(1700)
When we make reference to the red book we see the new
direction the hon. minister in charge of that department wants to
take western diversification. The direction is not one of giving
away money to businesses but one of helping businesses identify
export markets, helping businesses arrange the financing, not
giving them financing, and helping businesses compete on the
international market.
In my province in western Canada we see industries are
expanding and increasing their exports into countries like the
United States in the areas of farm machinery in particular and of
meat products. These are being expanded and we cannot ignore
such businesses.
This will continue because our government intends to help
business increase exports, not compete against each other
unfairly in our country but compete on the international market.
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General): Madam Speaker, like many Quebecers, I certainly do
not agree with the motion as it is tabled by the opposition.
It is interesting that, just last week, the United Nations told
the whole world that Canada is the number one country in terms
of its quality of life.
For that reason, I find it curious that some, particularly
opposition members, say that every measure taken by the
government of Canada has been a failure. Let me tell you this:
Since 1974, the Federal Office of Regional Development has
invested over $1.6 billion. All kinds of agreements were
concluded, including on tourism, forestry, fisheries and job
stimulation. Over the last few months, there has even been talk
of a dynamic federalism, because we rely a lot on measures
taken in the past.
Madam Speaker, I must also tell you that over 80 per cent of
the money invested in Quebec was transferred to that province
through administrative agreements. We are there to stimulate
the industry as a whole. We are there to help small businesses.
We did not waste any time since we took office. We launched
the infrastructure program. We have allocated over $60 million
through partnership projects with the province and the
municipalities. This program was initially endorsed by the
mayors of Quebec city and Montreal, and surely by several
dozens if not hundreds more throughout the province.
There is a lot to do. All Canadians must make sacrifices, as
well as the province and the municipalities, but we are there to
stimulate employment.
As regards the environment, the hon. member for Malpeque
and myself did not wait. We looked after the Irving Whale issue.
There are members who take environmental issues seriously.
The members opposite must know that the federal government
has just announced a $100 million project for the St. Lawrence
River, with a contribution of $60 million from the province of
Quebec. This is a serious government which is concerned first
by the employment situation, but also by the environment issue.
We can also talk about the Cod-Fisher Assistance Program. It
is true that cod-fishers, not only in Quebec, but throughout
Atlantic Canada, are going through a rough time. We have
invested $1.9 billion, including $100 million in Quebec.
4797
(1705)
The weekly benefits these people receive have gone from
$171 to $219. We are ready to invest significant amounts of
money in the Gaspé Peninsula for job creation and economic
recovery, by urging people to open small businesses, to take up
aquaculture, to participate in some programs and to develop
their entrepreneurial spirit. That is the role of the federal
government, the role of the Government of Canada.
We can also talk about the Federal Office of Regional
Development. The hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata
said: ``The federal did not invest in anything. I am looking, but I
cannot see where it invested''. I want to point out to her that
there is a Federal Office of Regional Development in Rimouski.
As a resident of the Gaspé area, I can tell you that Rimouski has
received more than its share, compared to other regions in
Eastern Quebec. The time has come to do something about this.
You know, we have invested in more than 1,000 small
businesses in Eastern Quebec. Of course, we have invested in
corporations which have become, with the help of the
Government of Canada, multinational companies, like Canadair
and de Havilland, and also Bombardier, a world-renowned
Quebec company. We have invested in Noranda and in the
mining industry.
The Government of Canada takes its responsibilities
seriously. I can give you some more examples. I see here that the
Corporation of the mining community of Bourlamaque, in
Val-d'Or, has recently received $3 million in subsidies. Spielo,
in Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, got $1 million, which is not an
insignificant investment for a region hard hit by unemployment.
And this one is my favourites. You know that we firmly
believe in education. Incidentally, I went in the beautiful
constituency of Rimouski to hand out federal scholarships to
young and promising students, to future leaders of Canadian
society. I can tell you that we want our young to achieve
excellence. At the Université du Québec, we invested more than
$9 million in the Engineering Department building, because we
believe in the scientific sector in Eastern Quebec. Sure, people
will tell me that education comes under the provincial
jurisdiction.
Here is a question for you, Madam Speaker: Why is it that
several school boards in Quebec have a drop-out rate of 35 to 40
per cent? We know very well why. The answer is easy. Because it
comes under provincial jurisdiction. But why has the province,
which has had jurisdiction over education since 1867, been
unable to correct this situation? And we know that 95 per cent of
young people complete their studies in Korea, and 90 per cent in
Japan. It is often said that students in some developing countries
have a better completion rate than Quebec students. The Quebec
government and the Opposition members should take their
responsibilities.
By the way, the policy of the Bloc is obviously suicidal for
Quebec. It does not address the real issues for Quebecers, that is
job creation and protection. But I do not want to conclude with
this. I want to tell you about the Town Corporation of
Rivière-du-Loup, which recieved $1.3 million; the Forestville
sawmill, $4.75 million. And that is not all.
I told you about the dryers in my beautiful constituency of
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, and we invested more
than $4 million in the Outaouais region. In Forestville, there is a
$1.1 million project funded by the federal government; and the
Tadoussac Town Corporation got almost $775,000.
Maybe I should say a few words about the riding of
Bonaventure. We invested over $300,000 last winter in surface
grinders to help tourism. We invested $50,000 in studies for the
museums. We invested $120,000 in the Youth Service Corps. We
have already invested a lot of money, even though we have been
in office for only six months, and we are about to invest several
million more. We have a business plan and we are very serious
about our job.
(1710)
We have acted instead of preaching about sovereignty,
independence and separation, about destroying the best country
in the world, about getting a divorce-that was the word used by
the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata who, by the way,
did not propose anything. It is easy to criticize. Admittedly,
Canada may not be easy to govern, but it is a generous country. It
is recognized internationally.
The Leader of the Opposition even went to see the Europeans
and the Americans to ask them if they would recognize Quebec
as a sovereign state. Essentially, they said: ``We recognize
Canada as a country''.
In the business world, in the private sector, in real life, it is
important to know with whom you are dealing. Canada has been
known as a country for 125 years. It is a welcoming country, a
country which sacrificed many of its sons and daughters in the
First and Second World Wars. Canada has a very good credit
rating. But some people do not realize that we have a lot of work
to do and that we must do it together. They do not realize that
those who would suffer the most as a result of the divorce
proposed by the opposition would be the workers of Quebec.
Everybody knows that. Ridiculous numbers are often thrown at
us. Some people do not understand that we have an obligation
towards all Quebecers and all Canadians. We have to take care of
their future, but it is not by talking about separation and about
4798
destroying this country as we know it that we will give a better
life to Canadians, especially to Quebecers.
We know that only 5 per cent of Quebecers, opposition
members included, believe that independence is the most
pressing issue. I see that my time is running out, but we have
many questions to solve and I think that we are going to solve
them together. We are going to solve them among Canadians.
But I find it totally unacceptable for the opposition to laugh at us
when we say that we want to put Canadians back to work,
particularly Quebecers, but they offer no alternative but
sovereignty and wishful thinking.
I urge opposition members to look around them and maybe to
co-operate with us in the search for solutions-which will
certainly not include sovereignty-to put Quebecers back to
work.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette): Madam Speaker, I would like to
go back to a few points mentioned by the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine when he vaunted the
Liberals' regional development programs. First, with regard to
education programs in Quebec, he said he was concerned about
the drop-out rate in Quebec. But he never said we were losing
between $250 and $300 million a year in occupational training,
money which should be spent in Quebec to help solve the
problems caused by dropping out. Education budgets have been
cut for nearly ten years in Quebec and, again, it is a Liberal
government which, for the last eight years, has reduced grants to
school boards and continually asked them to do more.
Neither does the member mention duplication in regional
development, where federal programs overlap with provincial
programs, and sometimes all this is done without considering
evaluation programs. They do not want to know what the results
will be. All they want is to throw some money in order to
convince Quebecers that the federal government is the best.
They are not interested to know if the programs will help create
jobs, all they want is to spend money to impress people.
Where was the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine last week when we spoke
of putting the regional infrastructure in place for building a
high-speed rail line? Not a single Liberal member from Quebec
rose in this House to support this bill, which could create
120,000 jobs. This is a real regional development project, it is
not an infrastructure project creating only short-term jobs. But
the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine was not
here to support it.
When one speaks of measures, one must be sincere and follow
one's principles and thinking through to their conclusion!
Mr. Gagnon: Madam Speaker, members opposite speak
about vocational training. In 1975 and 1970, more than 20 years
ago, we had five or six vocational training programs at the high
school in Bonaventure. Today, there are only a couple left.
(1715)
Quebec withdrew from its commitment to vocational training.
That should not be blamed on the Canadian government. A
question was asked about the $250 or $300 million funding. This
is a matter of harmonization, and of reaching an administrative
agreement with Quebec. Negotiations are under way and I can
tell you we are making good progress.
They talk about the high-speed train between Quebec City
and Windsor. What would happen if Quebec became
independent? Are we going to set up a border? Probably. You
think everything will be easy, but there are hard and cold facts.
Liberals want to concentrate on job creation and economic
renewal. Quite honestly, sovereignty does not solve any of our
real day-to-day problems.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière): Madam Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak to the motion of my colleague from
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. It is the first time since I have
been in the House of Commons that we talk about regional
development. The motion moved by a member from the Bloc
aims at making the public aware of the sad situation that exists
in the regions of Canada, and particularly of Quebec.
The motion says: ``That this House condemn the federal
government's ineffective regional development interventions''.
Today, I heard our Liberal friends speak highly of Canadian
federalism. I heard them speak about grants, about money given
everywhere in Quebec and in Canada. According to them, that is
a godsend for the good people and everyone should be happy and
say ``thank you, my good government''. But if we look at what is
presently going on in Quebec, particularly in the regions, what
do we see? We see unemployment, regions that are stagnant,
populations that are not growing and, most of all, we also see,
and that is dramatic, young people who are leaving their region.
I look at my region of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, and
particularly my town. Ten years ago, in Jonquière, there were
62,000 inhabitants; now, there are perhaps 58,000. What
happened? The young people do not like their region any more?
That is not the case. What happened is that people have to leave
their region in order to survive. There are regions in Quebec that
have almost become under-developed countries. Why are
people leaving their region to go elsewhere? It is because they
want to eat. And that is what are presently doing many
Quebecers who are leaving their region to go to Quebec City or
Montreal because they are hungry, they are hungry for work and
for opportunities.
Let us look at our regions. What happened? Is it because
people who work there are inefficient? There is a considerable
number of development programs both at the federal and
provincial levels. Some people work on the development of
those programs as administrators or regional sponsors. Those
people act as volunteers and give their time and their energy
4799
because they are committed to the development of their region.
There are also federal and provincial civil servants working.
Since my election I have been in contact every day with a lot
of federal civil servants. I know they are competent and
committed to their work but if we look at the results we can see
that nothing works well because of the endemic unemployment
in the regions. In my own area of Chicoutimi-Jonquière, the
unemployment rate is about 17 per cent, or 15 per cent in the
greater area. There must be something going wrong. I cannot see
what our Liberal friends have to brag about or congratulate
themselves for. They should meet the unemployed and the
students who cannot find work and tell them that everything is
going well; and we will see what answer they get.
Let me give you two examples of the inefficiency of regional
development in my region. I blame that situation on the
inefficiency of Canadian federalism. In my own region, an
incredible story has been going on for about fifteen years and it
is about the famous Alma-La Baie Highway.
(1720)
This is a highway which was to link the towns of Alma and La
Baie. There was a federal-provincial agreement for the
construction of this highway. The federal agreed, the provincial
agreed, the municipalities agreed, everybody agreed, but there
is still no highway. Every two, three, four or five years we add
three or five kilometres. When we want to go ahead there is
always someone to object.
At times it is the provincial government which objects, other
times the federal government which asks for delays. There is
conflict, and discussion, but no construction.
This is an example of a non-functioning federal-provincial
agreement endorsed in good faith by local governments which
did not realize that there was a fundamental flaw: there were two
decision-makers. When important decisions can come from two
different places, very often none are made.
This is an example that shows that Canadian federalism does
not work in the area of regional development. A divided
highway is essential for a region, but we still do not have one
because Canadian institutions are flawed.
Let us take another current example. There is a passenger
train service between Jonquière and Montreal which is managed
by VIA Rail. Some people in Canada say that rail service is not
cost-effective. They say that some lines make no profits, and
that cuts are needed. But where should we cut? Of course they
are going to make cuts in the means of transportation between
the large centres and the remote areas. They want to eliminate
one mode of transportation which is important for my area, in
several respects.
First of all, it is important because an area like mine, which is
quite remote, needs a variety of means of transportation for its
development and to be connected to larger centres. We have the
Laurentian Highway, which is not yet a divided highway, in spite
of several projects which might come to fruition some day, for
our grand-children to see. We have a deep water port and we
have the railroad.
An essential and fundamental aspect of rail transportion is
that it carries passengers. The Jonquière-Montréal train is a
very well kept secret. There is no publicity. People think it does
not exist any longer. They believe it is gone for good. So,
nobody takes the train, and since nobody takes the train, it
becomes easier to eliminate it.
A rumour is circulating to the effect that the railroad is going
to be closed. It may be more than just a rumour. I can tell you
that people in my area do not agree. The CRDE, municipal
councils from Jonquière to Montreal, people in Joliette, in
Shawinigan, the Prime Minister's own town, have been sending
petitions asking that the train be kept running. What has the
federal government done? It does not have a regional
development policy and it does not see how important and
fundamental this train is.
It will be even more important in the future. Right now, road
transportion is in. Trucks carry very heavy loads through the
Parc des Laurentides and ruin the road. It would be better done
by train. If the railroad is used less, and if there is no passenger
service any longer on that line, what are the great planners in
Ottawa going to say? Your train is not being used. Let us also
eliminate rail transportion of goods, remove the tracks, and
build bicycle paths instead. Where we come from, bicycle paths
are the major projects.
In the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area, the biggest
development project is the construction of a bicycle path around
the lake. We support the bicycle path, it is important, but when
in a area, the major project, the highest priority, is to build a
bicycle path, it means that something is wrong with regional
development policies. We are going to have to solve the
problem. How are we going to do it?
The Bloc Quebecois has a solution. We will not talk about
sprinkling grants around, but we will say that someone in the
regions must be responsible for regional development. Who
should that be? We believe that it should be the government
closest to the people. And who might that be? The answer is the
Quebec government and regional governments.
As part of the Bloc's sovereignty program, every possible
decision-making mechanism would be handed back to Quebec.
This is what a sovereign Quebec would do and this is how
4800
regions would be treated. We want them to have
decision-making and spending powers.
(1725)
We have devoted this entire day to focusing on regional
development with the intent of getting this message across to the
House of Commons and to our regions. Our regions want to
survive and to have effective policies. They want a future in
which they can flourish and continue to build on past
accomplishments. With the good will, ability and talents of the
regions, I am confident that a sovereign Quebec will flourish
and I am especially confident that this day will come very soon.
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Madam Speaker, before
putting a question to my colleague, I must comment the remarks
made earlier by the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine.
Modest as usual, he sang the praises of the federal
government and the Federal Office of Regional Development
and their past achievements. He also referred to a United
Nations report according to which Canada was number one in
terms of quality of life.
I would just like to make one thing clear. This report was
based on 1992 data. If my memory serves me right, the
Conservatives were in power in 1992. All of a sudden, the very
people who criticized the Conservatives for all their political
and economic actions are-or so it seems-singing their
praises, telling us they have given this country the best quality
of life in the world, after saying just the opposite during the
election campaign.
These reports and their basis could all be challenged. You
probably remember this report on poverty that said: ``Canada
may be the industrialized country with the highest poverty rate,
but to reduce that rate, all you have to do is lower the poverty
line''. We could go on about this at length. The hon. member
also mentioned a grant to the University of Rimouski. Again, I
will point out to him that this grant was made by a Conservative,
namely Mrs. Vézina-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member, but his comments must be addressed to the
Chair.
Mr. Brien: Very well, Madam Speaker. When I heard my
colleague talk about train service, it reminded me of what the
hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine had said.
My question is twofold.
The first part refers to what was said earlier. My colleague
mentioned train service. The word is that there is talk across the
way about a high speed train to develop both regions, Toronto
proper and the metropolitan area. This train would apparently
have to stop at certain borders.
I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that, because as
far as I know, planes do not stop in mid-air when travelling from
one country to another to have all passengers passports checked.
I think there is a serious problem there.
I would also like him to tell us about independent workers. He
never said anything about it, but there were designated areas in
which assistance was provided to unemployed workers who
wanted to start up a business. But this year, all designated areas
will receive almost no money at all. I would like to know what
my hon. colleague has to say about that.
Mr. Caron: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the high-speed train,
I must point out that such a train will link France and England. I
do not think it will stop in the middle of the Chunnel for a
passport check.
Assistance to independent workers has been cut. I think it is
unfortunate because this program was very beneficial to some
workers. I could add that, a month ago, my city of Jonquière
became a designated area under the independent workers
assistance program. We can say it is great and congratulate one
another, and I think all the local people were glad, except that we
and Sherbrooke have one of the highest unemployment rates in
Quebec.
We had large paper mills. We had the Alcan plants. We were
clearly well off economically and, 10 or 15 years later, we have
become a designated area and we are forced to accept with
pleasure for the time being but after we take control of our own
destiny, we will certainly do what is needed to escape the
poverty the federal system has plunged us into.
(1730)
However, for now, we must say that we are very glad to have a
good program, as my colleague from Bonaventure was saying
earlier, except that there is a 27 per cent unemployment rate in
his riding, so I hope he will tell his unemployed constituents that
there is a new dryer and that a subsidy has been granted to
Rimouski. Everyone must be happy, the subsidy machine has
come through.
The people of the Gaspé and the Lower St. Lawrence have
been subjected to planning experiments for many years and have
benefited from federal programs which were scrutinized by
everyone but, after 20 years of work and of federal and Liberal
subsidies, they still end up with a 27 per cent unemployment
rate.
So there is nothing new under the sun. They boast about
federalism and theorize but when we go see the people on
unemployment or on welfare-go ahead and laugh but these
people may be at home watching us and shaking their heads.
They say it is very nice. There is a nice post office with a nice
red flag in my village but I am afraid that-
4801
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): It being 5.30 p.m., it is
my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order
81(19), proceedings on the motion have expired.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business, as indicated on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
4801
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should systematically table,
every month, all contracts awarded by departments and by the agencies that
report to them, with any related information, in order to (a) keep the taxpayer
appropriately informed, (b) stimulate competitiveness, and (c) ensure that
government decisions are open and transparent.
She said: Madam Speaker, I am very proud to submit this
motion to my colleagues because it concerns a basic right in our
society, the right to information. In this case, the information
sought from the government concerns all contracts it concludes
with the private sector.
The reason I am presenting such a motion is that since I was
elected to Parliament, I have found it very difficult and
time-consuming to obtain information on all kinds of contracts
awarded by the federal government.
If we as members of Parliament can only obtain this type of
information with great difficulty, I really wonder how an
ordinary citizen goes about obtaining it. I see this as an
inappropriate barrier to information.
Indeed, in a democracy, how can one hold back and not make
freely available information related to contracts that are fully
paid by taxpayers? How can one tell taxpayers that they cannot
know what goods and services the government buys with their
money?
I think this is undemocratic and violates our great principles
about the right to information. I would like to make an aside here
about our rights as elected officials in this House, more
specifically on one way we have to obtain information, namely a
question on the Order Paper.
On February 18, I asked the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services to give us complete information on all
contracts awarded by his department for the period from
December 1, 1992 to December 1, 1993 and from December 2,
1993 to February 18, 1994.
As usual, the minister has 45 days to answer this question.
Yesterday, after waiting more than three months, the minister
answered this important question. What a surprise! Three little
pages of statistics that were already known. However, at one
point, the minister telephoned me to say that the answer to this
question would require tabling a huge pile of documents, a sea
of boxes full of papers. Yesterday I got his answer in three
pages! The minister must be a magician. He transformed dozens
of boxes into three little pages. What a feat he accomplished.
(1735)
A letter accompanying these three pages says: ``This
document is only a summary of the contracts awarded by the
former Department of Supply and Services during the five-year
period which ended on February 28, 1994. It is only reliable to
show the number of contracts awarded, negotiated and signed
during a given fiscal year''.
The letter goes on to say: ``The statistics in this report cannot
be used to determine the impact of these contracts on Canadian
economic activity''.
The minister can keep his useless document. The minister is
laughing at taxpayers. He does not give a damn about those who
pay for all these contracts. He hides behind unjustified reasons
to scorn the taxpayers' right to be informed. The minister is
afraid. He is scared to get caught with his pants down. He does
not want to provide all the information on contracts awarded
because he may have something to hide. Is this why the Liberal
government and its minister are so reluctant to provide
information? The minister's answer is inadequate and totally
unacceptable. His answer to a question on the Order Paper raises
doubt in our minds and in the minds of Canadians. It is a
legitimate doubt based on the popular belief that government
contracts are a form of patronage, and on concrete examples of
blatant suspicious dealings which make you sick.
The Conservatives were very good at this. They are not here
any more, because the people woke up and told the Tories to stop
undermining the voters and supporting the friends of the
Conservative Party. Voters send a very clear message that
remains the same for the Liberal government. Taxpayers expect
openness and honesty from their government and, to date, the
Grits have followed in the path of the Tories.
All the rhetoric and the promises of openness by the Liberals
were only idle talk, shameful promises that do not meet the
expectations of the people.
If members opposite do not agree with me, they should prove
me wrong. I challenge them to urge the minister of Public Works
and Government Services to answer truthfully and openly to
question Q-16 on the Order Paper. I do not think they will be
willing to meet this challenge. You are all proud of your
policies, but when the time comes to support intelligent and
reasonable demands, you all turn up as mild as a lamb, following
the orders of the ministers. I am sure that makes you uneasy at
times. I am sure that, in your ridings, you feel like bowing your
4802
heads in front of some of your voters who are unhappy with the
policies your party has laid down.
Go ahead, ask the minister to table all these contracts and the
relevant information. Prove us wrong! Prove to the population
that these contracts were awarded according to the rules and
from a completely impartial standpoint!
That is a lot to ask. It is especially hard to shed some light on
contracts that are potentially embarrassing.
The government is also aware of all the pressure coming from
lobbyists, from its friends and from people who make
contributions to its war chest. Does the government have
anything to hide from the public? Are so-called goodies an
obstacle to the disclosure of information on government
contracts? Are we still stuck with the old-style system of
awarding contracts, where transparency and openness were
ignored to serve the interests of certain people?
Members opposite are saying: no, no, no. The Liberal
government is not like that or, at least, not any more. All right, I
believe you. The public believes you. But give us proof and
release the supporting documentation.
Question Q-16 on the Order Paper is no small matter. I would
rather not have to go through the whole procedure again, which
does not work anyway in this case because the minister can use
his magic wand to make any changes he wants.
The motion before the House today is a proposal to set up an
information system. We want the government and its agencies to
table regularly all the contracts they award, and to do so on a
monthly basis.
(1740)
The Liberals will say this is impossible, the job is too big and
too complex and the cost of the operation exorbitant. Come on!
What about the electronic highway and sophisticated computer
programs? The government spends a fortune on top-of-the-line
equipment, so let us use it.
Tabling these contracts on a monthly basis will make it much
easier for taxpayers to get the facts and find out which
companies are getting their tax money. However, the system
must be clear and accurate. We do not want a pile of documents
dumped every month. We want information presented in an
orderly manner, neatly classified to make it easy to consult but
also presented in such a way that we can analyse how the
government spends taxpayers' money.
The Minister of Public Works and Government Services alone
is responsible for awarding 175,000 contracts annually. Last
year, the department acquired $13 billion worth of goods and
services under 17,000 general categories. It made purchases on
behalf of 158 federal departments and agencies. This is the
largest share the government purchases. In addition, there are
purchases made directly by the departments and agencies
themselves.
I would like to know who benefits from all those billions of
dollars. Taxpayers have a right to know which companies do
business with the government. That is a basic right. The federal
government also has a duty to abide by its great principle of
equity, a principle the Liberals like to flaunt in this House:
regional development, equalization, redistribution of wealth,
fiscal fairness. The Liberals keep repeating the same old story
every day. Tabling government contracts would give us relevant
information on the government's effectiveness in its Robin
Hood role.
According to an article that appeared in Le Droit on May 16,
Robin Hood does not necessarily do a good job in the case of
federal contracts. According to the article, Ottawa-Carleton
gets 99 per cent of $2.5 billion worth of federal contracts, while
the Outaouais region gets the rest, a meagre 1 per cent. In the
National Capital region, 25,000 contracts are awarded annually,
and only 250 of those 25,000 are awarded to companies on the
other side of the river.
In view of these figures, one is entitled to ask the following
question: On one hand, is this problem of concentration
happening in other areas in Canada, and on the other hand, is the
government trying to dilute, so to speak, this extraordinary
concentration? The tabling of all the contracts, every month,
would answer our first question. The conclusions would be easy
to reach. Well organized information would rapidly show
whether there are other areas like Ottawa-Carleton which are
reaping the federal manna.
The second question deals directly with the government's will
to allocate all its contracts, in a fair and just manner and, in so
doing, spreading around all this federal manna which always
benefits the same lucky few, in the same area.
Does the federal government make it possible for every
contractor to have access to its contracts? Better yet, should it
not favour contractors in other areas, even in remote areas?
Contractors outside of the larger centres would create jobs and
stimulate the regional economy. Of course, goods and services
might cost a little more, but in the end, it would have a positive
impact on the economy as a whole and on these areas which have
been hard-hit by unemployment.
In reality, the truth is very different. Moreover, instead of
opening up the whole process, and favouring remote areas, it
would appear that the federal government itself is creating
obstacles for contractors. One of them is language. Since my
election, I have met several contractors who have been
complaining, or at least, wondering about their chances to get a
contract when they answer in French a call for tender in English.
4803
I draw the attention of the House to the fact that, in his 1992
report, the Auditor General states that 80 per cent of
specifications sent to Quebec contractors are written in English.
O Canada! Bilingual? Not when it comes to contract
specifications or calls for tender, which only appear in French as
summaries. Such a situation is unacceptable and contrary to our
language legislation.
(1745)
I wonder about the treatment that the supply service of a
department would give to a tender entirely in French from a
Quebec company. Would it receive the attention it deserves?
Some French- speaking contractors told me they had doubts
about that.
This motion, if it is received by the government, will shed
light on all these questions pertaining to contracts. We believe
that it is high time that the government comes clean in this area,
and our demand is backed by the people.
The motion has another objective, and it is to promote
competition. Disclosure would certainly pike the interest of a
great many companies. They would then seek to offer their
products or even to diversify in order to produce the goods
required by the government.
It is not everybody who knows that the government buys flour
or soybean oil for CIDA, and that it rents aircrafts or buys
textiles for National Defence. Disclosure would draw attention
to the opportunities offered. With more people interested in
tendering, we can expect lower prices and therefore savings for
taxpayers. In my opinion, these savings should be reinjected
into the system in order to support the companies based in the
regions. With a real development policy for local companies,
specific measures could guarantee a fair redistribution of the
savings. In the long run, such measures would be economically
worthwhile.
I am fully aware that, unfortunately, this motion depends
entirely on the government's will. I am sure the Liberals, the
Minister of Public Works and Government Services being the
first, will refuse to even consider my request. It is easier to
evade one's responsibilities using false pretences than it is to
fulfil the legitimate expectations of the population.
I urge them to seriously think about the ultimate purpose of
this motion, that is the right to information. Nobody in this
House can object to such a fundamental right. Refusal by the
Liberal government to systematically table every month the
information required to keep the taxpayers appropriately
informed of the spending of their tax money would be perceived
as an important breach of proper democracy.
Such a refusal would also clearly prove the lack of courage of
the Liberals, stemming no doubt from the fear of disclosing
embarrassing information. Transparency and openness were
your campaign leitmotiv and are the main themes of your red
book. Your leader keeps repeating that you are a good
government with nothing to hide. Now is the time to prove it!
The government and the minister have not heard the last about
the transparency of government's contracts. We will always be
watching because the population has the right to know. The
small king of government services can stop ruling over his
kingdom because he showed us his colours: red, red, red; a sure
sign of lack of transparency. One day soon, he will have to
answer to the population and on that day he will find out that
acting like a king can be very dangerous.
[English]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada): Madam Speaker, the member of
Parliament for Laurentides has moved that the government table
all contracts entered into by federal departments and agencies
on a monthly basis.
According to the motion the purpose of this activity would be
threefold: to keep taxpayers informed; to stimulate
competitiveness; and to ensure government decisions are open
and transparent. There is no doubt these are worthy goals.
However, I would like to assure the member and the House that
these concerns are already carefully and responsibly addressed
by this government.
What the member is suggesting with this motion is the
creation of another layer of bureaucracy. It would duplicate and
overlap with currently existing services which disseminate the
information being sought by the member. What the member and
her party are calling for is a waste of taxpayers' money.
(1750)
[Translation]
Obviously, administering the procurement process is an
enormous task for the federal government. However, a number
of systems enjoying an excellent cost effectiveness ratio are
already in place at Public Works and Government Services
Canada. These systems ensure that the Canadian public is served
fairly and efficiently and is given unrestricted access to
information concerning government procurement.
Therefore, there is no need to waste taxpayers' time, energy or
money tabling reports on the procurement process, since this
information is already available and readily accessible to the
Canadian public.
The questions raised in the motion now before us for debate,
namely access to information about contracts, competitiveness
and the integrity of the procurement process, have and continue
to be priorities of this government.
As one of the largest purchasers of goods and services and as a
major administrator of real property holdings, Public Works and
Government Services Canada ensures that basic information
4804
enabling all companies in Canada to do business with the federal
government is readily available to them.
One of the tools it uses is the Open Bidding Service. Also
known as the OBS, this system is an electronic bulletin which
posts information and provides everyone with an equal
opportunity to bid on government procurement contracts. The
OBS supplies information on contracts that will be opened
shortly and on the documents businesses will need to have in
order to submit bids. All Public Works and Government
Services Canada construction or maintenance services contracts
valued at $60,000 or more, as well as all other types of contracts
of $25,000 or more are posted in the OBS. Each year, more than
$5 billion in purchases are made through the OBS.
The OBS ensures that every person, regardless of where he or
she lives in Canada, has access at the same time as everyone else
to the same information and for the same price.
Public Works and Government Services Canada also
publishes a printed journal entitled ``Government Business
Opportunities'' which, like the OBS, lists all contract
opportunities. This journal, which is published three times a
week, also provides information as it becomes available.
[English]
This information is also available in the federal business
bulletin and the R and D bulletin.
The federal business bulletin, which appears twice a week,
gives a brief description of the contracts awarded across
Canada. With about 100 editions of this publication produced
every year, approximately 1,200 contracts awarded by the
government are announced in this way. The document is
available to anyone who asks to be put on the mailing list.
The R and D bulletin provides information on contracts in the
science and technology field. On a monthly basis it provides up
to date information on federally funded science and technology
contracts that have been awarded.
[Translation]
In addition to providing information about contract
opportunities with the federal government, OBS also gives
advance notice of contracts to be awarded. These are notices of
contracts that the government intends to award without tender,
called sole source contracts. Advance notice is displayed in OBS
to give companies an opportunity to challenge the government's
decision to call on only one supplier. If another supplier proves
that he can meet the requirements of a contract that is to be
sole-sourced, a call for competitive bids will be issued. This is
another effective way that the government uses to stimulate
competition.
Besides providing all Canadians with information on
opportunities to bid, the government also makes available to
them information on contracts already awarded on a regular
basis. Canadians thus have access to this information as soon as
it is available, and not only once a month, as the hon. member
proposes. The Open Bidding Service also offers a historic data
base with which any Canadian can find out all competitive
contracts announced since 1989.
(1755)
Thus anyone in Canada can find out what companies obtained
contracts by open bidding, for what good or service and when.
The Open Bidding Service was designed so that everyone
could have easy access to information on current purchasing
possibilities and on contracts already awarded by the
government. This system meets all the requirements for access
to information, competition and accountability.
Easy access to relevant and timely information is the key to
ensuring the fairness and openness required for the purchasing
process. Nevertheless, our government believes that suppliers
must also have an appeal mechanism at their disposal if they
think that the government has not kept its commitment to act
fairly and openly.
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal is an independent
body that gives suppliers quick recourse at low cost for
contesting the awarding of contracts subject to the North
American Free Trade Agreement.
If they win their case, they can receive compensation or be
allowed to participate in a new bid. This is a mechanism to
ensure the integrity and honesty of the purchasing process.
More generally, each department accounts for its activities
and acquisitions to Parliament, and thus to suppliers, to the
media and to all Canadians, through the Main Estimates and the
Auditor General's Report, which are tabled annually.
The public sector is under constant scrutiny, Madam Speaker.
Canadians demand not only that the government keep its
expenditures and the cost of its services under control, but also
that it show integrity.
With all the procedures already in place, there is no doubt that
government contracting is open to all, that the process is
equitable and that all related information is already available
and accessible to all Canadians.
There are a number of problems with the motion before this
House today. The mere fact of tabling in the House the
information relating to all contracts awarded will not make this
information more readily accessible to the Canadian public.
4805
[English]
Up to date information on contracts awarded is currently
available every day to any Canadian anywhere across Canada on
the OBS. This information is very time sensitive for suppliers.
With the information currently available and accessible,
suppliers know right away whom to approach for example for
subcontracting activities.
A monthly printout is not only a duplication of information
already available but of very limited benefit to suppliers as it is
only an historical record. The cost of producing monthly reports
of this nature must also be taken into account. Given the volume
of contracts let by the federal government every month this
would be an extremely costly and time consuming activity. The
tabling of monthly reports of contracts awarded is a duplication
of efforts.
[Translation]
As the hon. member herself told this House, we must strive to
eliminate duplication and overlap so as to reduce costs, save
money and ensure efficiency.
[English]
This government is streamlining and eliminating waste. It is
not the intention of this government to spend taxpayers' dollars
reproducing reports which already exist and are an effective and
proven means of accessing the same information.
On the very day that one Bloc member is calling for the
reduction in duplication and overlap, another Bloc member is
also calling for another layer which duplicates an existing
program, creating once again administrative chaos. The Bloc
cannot suck and blow at the same time.
This government's commitment to the integrity of the
procurement process was made very clear with the recent
release of new guidelines for public and open research and
advertising contracts by the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services. This announcement by the ministry
clearly illustrates the commitment of the Prime Minister and
this government to an open and fair process for the Canadian
people.
(1800 )
Once again Canadians already have access to up to date
information everywhere in Canada on the government
procurement activities. Not only here is there no need for
repackaging this information, but it would be a waste of effort
and energy. The government strongly believes in the importance
of the integrity of the procurement process. Canadians have the
right to know how their government does business and who it
does business with. They also require that their government not
waste money.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Madam Speaker, it
is ironic that all those years in opposition the Liberals wanted
accountability and now we hear them talking like they do not
want it. This is a request for information.
Although the information that is being requested may have
some problems with it in that it is voluminous and the
information on a monthly basis may be quite a tribunal to
produce, especially in this world of paperwork in Ottawa, I
suppose we might be able to look at limits on the types of dollars
that are reported, and so on. Nevertheless, the Liberal
government would be very wise to keep an open mind on what is
being asked here of my colleague.
I am a member of the public accounts committee and it is
again ironic that I have asked for information relating to current
expenditures of this government and I have been unable to get it
on a current basis. Once a year we produce a public accounts list
and you can get it at that point. What we are looking for here is
money that is unwisely spent at the time it is spent, not a year
from now that we go complaining about it.
Why are we asking for this in the first place? Why are we
asking for the government to disclose what it is spending and
why and how?
How often have we wished in this country that we could elect
politicians who possessed the fortitude, the integrity, to be
frugal, to spend the taxpayers' money as though it were their
own, who end the practice of patronage and have the greatest
desire to be held accountable to the people? It seems like we
threw the Liberals out in 1984 in the hope that the Conservatives
would exercise these responsible attributes. What happened?
The Conservatives were just as bad, if not worse, than the
Liberals.
Here we are in 1994 throwing Canadians back into the
political pot with the Liberals, who already have shown signs of
poor judgment, political patronage and wasteful spending.
Is it any wonder why today in this stage of our country's
development millions of Canadians cannot tell the difference
between the Liberals and the Conservatives?
My colleague who just spoke from the government side said:
``Carefully and responsibly addressed by government'. That is
how he is suggesting that moneys are being spent in this country
today. Earlier this week we disclosed in this House that if you
call giving prisoners in this country old age security, CPP and
GST rebates responsible, I am afraid there is quite a difference
of opinion as to what is responsible and what is not. We do not
consider that responsible.
Let us take the political placement of the NAFTA
headquarters in Montreal, the millions in grants to the Prime
Minister's riding for a museum of industry, and a $30 million
grant to Quebec City for a conference centre. One can only
wonder since they are basically patronage payouts how many
people are
4806
getting contracts within those allotments that are indeed
inappropriate.
What the member is asking for here is some legitimizing of
the process, some information going back to the taxpayer that
discloses what is going on.
The fact is that there is no difference between Liberals and
Conservatives of the past, they are both out of touch. They are
both big spenders and firmly believe in spending your money the
way they prefer and not the way you prefer.
What must all Canadians do to protect ourselves these days? I
think the hon. member for Laurentides has a solution to part of
the problem at least. Systematically table every month all of the
contracts awarded by departments and by the agencies that
report to them. What is so difficult about something like that?
(1805 )
It will be interesting to see whether or not this flaccid Liberal
government supports this motion. After all, it does have the
potential of keeping the taxpayer appropriately informed,
stimulating competitiveness and ensuring that government
decisions are open for public scrutiny. We will see when the vote
comes. It is probably Monday or Tuesday night, and we will be
watching for it.
Since we know that the Liberals and Conservatives are
kindred spirits in the same world of politics, let us look at some
expenditures of the past that were made on behalf of the citizens
of our country. They can judge for themselves whether they
would have spent money on these projects. If they disagree, they
should write their members of Parliament and tell them what
they think. They should confirm that they want some safeguards
instilled to protect them and their hard earned income from the
Liberal process of mismanagement.
I want to run through a couple. I want to make it very clear that
these were expenditures within the Conservative government.
However, I am making my point here that there is very little
difference between this Liberal government with regard to
management of fiscal resources in this country and the
Conservatives.
Let us look at what the National Capital Commission spent in
1991; $10,800 of taxpayers' money to finance a poll to find out
what Canadians thought about Christmas lights. Is that a wise
expenditure? I do not think the people of Fraser Valley West
would think that way.
In 1990 the finance department spent $300,000 to produce and
distribute 40,000 videos explaining how the federal government
spent money-very good. We will be watching for these
expenditures all through the next five years. If the government
thinks it is going to get away with it, it has another thing coming
with the Reform Party because we are going to watchdog every
expenditure it has.
I will give a couple of more because there are so many. Let us
talk about the $147,000 to examine lullabies, the form and
function in infant directed music-very good. I think the people
watching are getting the point.
An hon. member: What have you got against children?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): One of my colleagues asks
what I have against children. I have absolutely nothing against
children. In fact, that is one of the reasons I am here. The
children of this country are not going to fare very well with a $40
billion deficit this year. They have to pay that debt. It is going to
be on their backs. What have I got against children?-nothing.
We are here to protect their future, not like this government.
Once the report is issued, if it were issued on a monthly basis
or a semi-monthly basis or whatever, what do we do with the
information? Do we fire a bureaucrat? That is unlikely, the way
we are looking at things here. We cannot even get at the jumble
of fish and find out, as they say, who done it. Do we question the
House on the merits of these expenditures in Question Period in
the House of Commons?
If anybody has been watching Question Period in the House of
Commons since it has opened, we have yet to get decent answers
from this government when we ask the ministers questions. How
do we get at these kinds of issues?
Perhaps we take it to a committee of the House of Commons.
Maybe we should take it to the public accounts committee. We
are back to the vicious circle where I started. Actually I had
asked the question time and time again in public accounts and I
get the answer: ``Wait until the public accounts report comes out
from the Auditor General or the Comptroller General''. That
comes out once a year. Here we are retroactively dealing with it.
If contracts are going to be let, let us give the people in this
country the ability to look at the repercussions, the patronage,
the unwise spending of this government. It is truly unfortunate
we Reformers are here to be the watchdog on this Liberal
government to protect the public's interest, but it is a necessity.
Let us hope we make a difference because certainly this
government will not.
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River): Madam
Speaker, on May 4 the hon. member for Laurentides proposed:
That the government should systematically table, every month, all contracts
awarded by departments and by the agencies that report to them, with any
related information, in order to (a) keep the taxpayer appropriately informed,
(b) stimulate competitiveness, and (c) ensure that government decisions are
open and transparent.
4807
(1810 )
As the member for Dauphin-Swan River I want to assure the
hon. member that from the very outset of its mandate this
government has been committed to fairness and openness in
government contracting. This government has stressed the need
for maximum use of competition by departments and agencies
when contracting for the goods and services it requires from the
private sector to fulfil its various programs.
I believe there is a compelling need especially these days for
strict fiscal restraint to ensure that each dollar spent by the
government is a necessary expense and that it represents the best
value that can be achieved in the use of that scarce resource. At
the same time I agree that all government contracting must be
undertaken in a manner that keeps the taxpayer informed,
stimulates competitiveness, and ensures that government
decisions are open and transparent. Treasury Board already has
in place contracting policies that address these specific goals.
I should like to point out the magnitude of the government's
contracting activities. The Government of Canada is the
country's largest user of private sector supplies. There are over
200,000 transactions each year ranging from small purchases
such as items of stationery to major procurements such as
military equipment.
By relying on the program experts of departments, only a very
small percentage of government contracts often associated with
large and risky initiatives require the collective review of
ministers. All contracts however are subject to the requirements
of the Treasury Board contracting policy whose principles and
procedures I again emphasize ensure an open, transparent and
competitive contracting process.
While the Department of Public Works and Government
Services undertakes many contracts on behalf of other
departments, close to half of all contracts are awarded under the
authority of individual departments.
In these circumstances I cannot agree that the government
should impose the suggested detailed monthly consolidation of
all this contracting information. The cost of preparing such a list
and the time spent preparing it would far exceed any benefit.
Information on the magnitude of government contracting
already exists.
This government is making improvements to ensure even
greater transparency. Each year the public accounts include
substantial information on contract expenditures. This is listed
by individual department. It is then further broken down by
individual contractor for all contracts which exceed $100,000.
For professional and special service contracts, an area which
has grown over the past decade, I refer the hon. member to the
convenient summary in the public accounts. It groups contracts
for each department under the most common types of services
the government acquires, such as accounting services,
engineering and architectural services, information services,
legal services, training and educational services, and the like.
In addition, there is Canada's international trade
commitments which require specific detailed reporting on
contracts awarded. For example the comprehensive reports
required under the North American Free Trade Agreement are
currently being implemented.
In this regard I would like to inform the hon. member that
under the terms of this agreement the government is committed
to the use of open and competitive contracting for all the
procurements in excess of the NAFTA thresholds. This means
ensuring that American and Mexican as well as Canadian
companies are aware of the government's needs and have an
opportunity to bid to provide them.
Even as we are adjusting to the international aspects of this
new operating environment, we must also make preparations to
provide the other parties with the annual report which I
previously mentioned. This will prove that we are fulfilling the
terms and the spirit of the agreement. I know that achieving
trilateral agreement on the nature and precise detail of what is to
be recorded has not been easy.
(1815)
Furthermore, at least in Canada's case, there is a related
ongoing period of difficult adjustment. As departments develop
and begin to put in place systems to collect the required
information, I can assure the hon. member that the end result of
this long and arduous process will be a publicly available
document which will more than meet any need for statistical
information on government contracts.
As well, because this report will be public, departments will
doubtlessly consider this to be a further incentive to use the
competitive contracting process.
As the member for Dauphin-Swan River I agree that
interested suppliers need to know what acquisitions the
government plans to make. This is the key to a truly competitive
process.
Treasury Board policy encourages the use of open bidding
service for advertising upcoming purchases of goods and
services. The open bidding method uses both electronic
information technology and the print medium to advertise bids.
It is compulsory for advertising all procurements subject to
NAFTA.
The Department of Public Works and Government Services
uses this means for communicating with industry for all
procurements over $25,000.
When the government knows that it must acquire a good or
service it uses the open bidding service and the government
4808
business opportunities publication to inform suppliers of a
proposed purchase and thereby to solicit proposals from them.
The related notice of proposed procurement is carried by
these media for either 40 days if it is subject to the NAFTA or 30
days if it is not covered under the NAFTA. The notice identifies
what is needed, how much of it, any related technical
specifications, the supply timeframe, and any other relevant
information which pertains to this proposed acquisition.
As well it lists the criteria which will be used to evaluate
whether the supplier is qualified to provide the good or service
and the second set of criteria which state what will be used to
evaluate the proposals of the qualified suppliers.
By providing all this detail up front business is assured
sufficient time to decide whether it could supply the item,
whether it wants to supply it, to seek any further clarifications
which it may wish and then to develop and submit its proposal.
There are of course other situations where the government
anticipates that it will need a good or a service in the next little
while but it does not need it immediately. Again, the open
bidding service and the government business opportunities can
be used to identify a list of possible suppliers which can be
turned to when the item is actually needed.
In this case the government places a notice of planned
procurement on them for either 30 or 40 days depending on
whether or not the item is covered under NAFTA. This particular
notice will in a comparable manner to the notice of proposed
procurements state what is wanted, the quantity thereof, and the
like.
In this case though it will only identify the financial,
commercial and technical aspects which will serve as the
criteria to be used to evaluate whether a supplier is qualified to
be included on the suppliers' list.
Again by using the open bidding service and government
business opportunities to create this list companies are placed in
a position of having ample information and time to determine
whether they are interested in pursuing this possible business
opportunity.
In view of all the preceding, I cannot agree that the imposition
of more detailed and expensive reporting requirements on
departments and agencies would serve the best purposes of
either the House or the taxpayers of Canada.
This government strives to have the most effective public
service in the world. The motion proposed by the hon. member
would require a transfer of human and technological resources
from areas where they could better serve Canadians and redirect
them to meet the proposed monthly contracting reports. This
simply cannot be justified as a cost effective use of these limited
resources. In this context, I would suggest that the hon. member
especially think about the many small departments and agencies
which do not have the resources to assume an overhead burden
like the one which has been proposed.
(1820)
If this suggestion were to be adopted these organizations
would end up redirecting their resources with the possible result
and that thereby could be diverted from meeting their primary
mission to Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix): Madam Speaker, as
member for Charlevoix, I am pleased to rise today to support the
motion moved in this House this afternoon by the hon. member
for Laurentides, Quebec, and seconded by the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata.
What does the Bloc Quebecois demand in this motion?
Simply that the government put all papers on the table and fulfil
through concrete measures the promises made by the Liberals
during the election campaign, namely to be transparent, to act
with integrity and to hide nothing from Canadians.
I am terribly surprised at the beginning of this debate on the
motion of the hon. member for Laurentides because we are
simply asking the government to table all contracts awarded
during the month. It is very transparent, very normal. The
government has the responsibility-just as we do as the Official
Opposition-to ensure that public funds, that the taxes paid by
Quebecers and Canadians, are well administered.
When the hon. member for Laurentides told me about her
motion, I was sure that it would not make waves, that it would be
adopted by unanimous consent in this House, that the Liberals
would always throughout their mandate-and not only during
the election campaign-want to preserve this great spirit of
transparency.
We want to raise another issue. Quite recently, I attended with
the hon. member for Laurentides a meeting where the Minister
of Public Works and Government Services was present. That is
where the shoe started to pinch.
Would you, Minister of Public Works and Government
Services who, with your officials, administer a very large
budget, agree-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry but the hon.
member must address his remarks to the Chair.
Mr. Asselin: Madam Speaker, I was asking the minister how
he would feel if, some day, he was accused of patronage. I know
that the minister does his best to monitor his department but, as I
asked at a conference on taxation: Is it the civil servants who
spend too much, or is it the politicians who are bad managers?
4809
The Minister of Finance replied that it was the politicians who
were spending too much.
I think politicians spend too much, often because of a lack of
adequate controls. To provide us with the list of contracts
awarded is simply a form of control allowing us to monitor the
money spent in each department.
During the proceedings of a commission on public works and
government services, I asked a question to the Minister of
Public Works and Government Services.
(1825)
My question was: ``Minister, are you prepared to confirm and
to pledge to this commission that you will make public tenders
in the newspapers, prepare a public notice and adequate
specifications, review the tenders, and then accept the lowest
qualified bid?''
You will not believe the minister's answer. He said: ``I will
not pledge to accept the lowest qualified bid''. Again, we are
talking about the lowest qualified bid. As I said at the beginning
of my speech, a minister's responsibility is to administer public
goods and taxes; yet, the minister will not pledge to accept the
lowest qualified bidder.
This means that the minister who, I am convinced, spoke in
good faith, runs the risk of being betrayed some day by someone
who might give a contract to a friend, with the result that the
newspapers would relate another patronage decision benefitting
some friend of the party who may have paid $1,000 to attend a
fundraising dinner, or who may have made significant
contributions to the party's finances.
This would be unfortunate for the minister, and also for
department officials. We want the government to do what it, not
us, said it would do. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself said
that, if elected, he would promote total openness and integrity,
and would open all the government books.
As Mrs. Guay said, patronage decisions were made during the
nine years of Conservative government. If we do not provide a
way to monitor the process, the present government may well be
faced with a similar situation.
They also say they want to reduce the deficit. I think it is an
excellent idea to prevent waste by agreeing to call for tenders
and give all bidders a chance to bid on a contract and give them a
chance to work for the government.
To give them that chance, the government has to give public
notification and publish such notices in the media. We do not
want a situation like the one the Conservatives created when
they agreed to privatize Pearson Airport, something the present
government could have ratified.
The present Liberal government could have ratified this
contract and the helicopter contract as well. Why did it refuse?
Already there are some doubts. They should abide by what was
said during the election campaign and what they said in the red
book. You said you would be open to a fault. You said you would
reduce the deficit, although the government's last budget
predicted a deficit of $39.7 billion.
You also said you would get rid of the GST, although the
government is getting ready not to abolish the tax but to change
its name-VAT, TOC, whatever-but the GST will not
disappear. I think the government has a responsibility to manage
our tax money. They are responsible for managing the revenue
they get from taxpayers. And we in the Bloc Quebecois who with
other Quebecers send $28 billion annually in income tax to the
government, are concerned about the way our tax money is
being administered, and this does not include what we pay
through the GST.
We think that the government is ashamed or just does not want
to table the documentation which is simply a way to find out in
which ridings in Quebec and Ontario contracts have been
awarded.
(1830)
It might be interesting to find out how much it costs the
government to do something within its own administration. If
the government does not table this information, that is because it
is a poor manager. The government should manage taxpayers
money as carefully as municipalities do this in Quebec, and I am
sure in the rest of Canada.
I was a municipal councillor for 14 years in Baie-Comeau,
and according to the legislation on cities and towns, the
municipal council was obliged, by resolution, to award a
contract to the lowest bidder. I would ask the government, which
manages far more money than the municipalities, to be as
careful as they are about managing taxpayers' money.
As the parliamentary secretary pointed out, I know I can have
access to certain documents thanks to the Access to Information
Act, but this is quite a production. You need the nature of the
contract, the contract number and the date on which the contract
was awarded, and the result is still zilch.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Time for Private
Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing
Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
4809
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
The adjournment of the House is deemed to have been moved
pursuant to Standing Order 38.
4810
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Madam
Speaker, last week, I asked the government why members of the
Cabinet had all refused to attend the annual convention of the
Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario. In view of the
outcry raised by that refusal, the Minister of Health recently
agreed to attend, but not necessarily for the right reasons. This
behaviour is typical of the historical approach taken by the
federal government towards French reality in Canada.
Federalist members of Parliament do not seem to have the time
and, most of all, the desire to defend the interests of French
people in this country.
No, Liberal members are much too busy condemning the fact
that the Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario had the
impudence to invite the Leader of the Official Opposition to its
annual convention. The Liberal member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell even had the gall to compare
Franco-Ontarians to little chickens that were contributing to
their own misfortune by inviting Colonel Sanders to their annual
convention. The member and his sorry associates were quickly
taken down a peg or two by representatives of the French
communities outside Quebec.
Indeed, several Canadian newspapers reported the response of
these French leaders, on May 27, to the scornful words of the
hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, among others.
For instance, in the newspaper Le Droit, the president of the
ACFO, Mr. Jean Tanguay, was questioning the work done by
their Liberal members in the following words: ``When time
comes to denounce the injustices promulgated by the provincial
government, do they make the front page? Have they denounced
the fact that we have lost the management of literacy in
Ontario?''
The same day newspaper also reported the comments of the
president of the ACFO in Prescott-Russell, Mr. Rolland
Saumure, who denounced even more violently the attitude of his
own federal member. He declared: ``It is not by burying our
heads in the sand as Mr. Boudria does that we will make any
progress. Is Mr. Boudria afraid of information? Should we just
listen to our good Liberal ministers in Ottawa?''
The newspaper La Presse reported the comments of Mrs.
Claire Lanteigne, president of the Fédération des communautés
francophones et acadiennes du Canada. She was infuriated with
the lack of respect demonstrated to them by some Liberal
members who tried to screen the information that could get to
them.
In conclusion, I want to say that I find very disgraceful that
some members of the House of Commons try to limit the
freedom of speech of members of another political party for the
sake of a federalist doctrine that they are unfortunately ready to
defend at any cost, as we could see.
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Madam Speaker, I am glad
that the members from the Bloc Quebecois, like the government,
is concerned about the faith of minority French-language
communities. The Bloc is making interesting promises to these
communities, but whether they will be carried out remains to be
seen.
There is no doubt, however, that the federal government is
supporting these communities, and the official languages policy
already provides them with a lot more than this political party
which is only passing through Ottawa can promise them.
[English]
It is in the vital field of education that the federal government
contributes most significantly to the development of minority
communities.
In Ontario alone we have contributed approximately $334
million in the last five years for the teaching of our official
languages, of which $200 million went for minority official
language education for nearly 100,000 young francophones of
this province, thus contributing to reducing dropout rates in
illiteracy as well as increasing participation in post-secondary
education.
To these amounts we have added a contribution of $50 million
over the next five years to help establish a network of three
post-secondary colleges for the French speaking minority of
this province. This includes La Cité collégiale in Ottawa.
We also fund francophone community associations
throughout this province that are active in community
development.
[Translation]
Several members of this government will attend the ACFO
convention and I would like to remind my colleague from the
Official Opposition that government members meet, on a
regular basis, with representatives of minority communities,
from all over the country, to discuss concrete measures.
[English]
Our commitment to these communities goes much beyond
simple rhetoric. We will continue to work in partnership with
them to ensure their full development.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5) the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted. The House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.36 p.m.)