René Canuel

[Committees Of The House, December 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources relating to our review of the mining industry.

I wish to thank those who testified before or submitted briefs to the committee. By their input, they have made a significant contribution to our work.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that we must remember. I was at home when I heard about the tragedy at the École polytechnique. Even five years later, the memory is almost just as painful.

I spent my whole adult life as a high school teacher in a rural area.

Even in a comprehensive secondary school with 1,200 students, there was quite a bit of violence, so much so in fact that some children were persecuting each other in almost a tragic way.

When I first started teaching there was some violence, but it was more sporadic. However, toward the end of my career, it had become almost a daily occurrence.

Earlier, we referred to verbal abuse, which is very prevalent among young people. It is fine to describe that violence, and when we discuss violence, we forget about partisan considerations and think only about the victims, but we forget about meanness.

I have a question for this House: Why is there so much violence? It goes without saying that if a young boy is not loved, he will not like himself. And a young boy who does not like himself will develop a mean streak which he will express in various ways.

How does he behave? He hits, makes harsh comments, or hurls insults. It is said that violence generates violence. Gangs are organized: three against three, four against four, and so on. These gangs carry on their activities; they often use drugs and then they find weapons. There is practically no limit to what they will do.

How de we stop that? I believe there are several ways. By looking for the causes of violence, we will find the means to stop it. We feel that prevention is an excellent means to that end. In some schools, there is a lot more prevention than in others and violence has diminished considerably.

It is also true that where poverty and unemployment are a fact of life, crime tends to be more widespread.

The massacre of these young students was a tragedy, I agree. But two young people who make a suicide pact is also a tragedy. This happened in my riding two years ago, when two young people committed suicide. When you consider that these were intelligent, healthy youngsters, you wonder why they no longer

wanted to go on living. Why did they want to take their own lives? There must be a reason. And I wondered how at sixteen, seventeen or twenty, you could consider suicide. Many of my students committed suicide, and every time I said to myself: There is a reason. There is a reason, because we instinctively hold on to life, as anyone who has been near death will agree.

If you are in good health and you decide to take your own life, there may be several reasons but we have to find the right one.

Other students are in prison, some of my own students whom I see from time to time. Apparently, at 15 or 16 they were like everybody else, just as open-hearted. So what happened? Why did it happen to him and not someone else? Maybe it was some experience they had in their lives or somehow they had reached the point of no return, with very unfortunate results.

I agree we need legislation on firearms but we need more than that. I think that starting with primary school, we must find ways to wipe out this petty violence that occurs year after year. How can a three or four year old child become so aggressive that he is almost ready to strangle his next door neighbour? If we take them at 25 and send them to jail, the cost to society is enormous. Sometimes they get out with new tricks, and some, although not all, become repeaters.

My main concern is not firearms. I agree that we should control guns. I could not agree more. It does not make sense to send people to prison for 20, 25 or 30 years, and turn them into hardened criminals. I am not saying we should not do that, that is not what I mean. My point is that we have to go to the root of the matter and find out the initial causes as soon as possible.

Some children go to primary school without breakfast or lunch and only have a snack for supper.

Some of my oldest students were saying that poverty did not exist or hardly. Once, during the holiday season at the school where I taught we made Christmas baskets. I told these older students who were big and tough and sure of themselves to come with me. They came, and the first house we went to we saw two cases of empty beer bottles, each with 24 bottles, and a man lying on a kind of chesterfield. The cupboards were bare and children were crying.

When we got back, these guys who were 16, 17 or 18 and pretty tough, said: Poverty does exist, and we should go and visit poor families more often. These kids had been in trouble before, some had been convicted of theft. They felt they were luckier than others, but it takes time to make them understand. They should have these experiences, otherwise they harden their hearts and lose their self-esteem, and then they will do anything to survive. They try to be tough and become marginalized.

So to come back to what I was saying, I am glad the Minister of Justice is here.

I want to ask the minister whether all the legislation we are going to adopt should not emphasize prevention. Prevention should take place at the earliest possible age, because once a person is 40 and has been in prison repeatedly, I am not saying nothing can be done, but it is certainly far more difficult.

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, November 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to repeat a number of points I raised previously, since I find myself in the position of a teacher faced with a student who is the opposite of a quick study. This certainly does not apply to the minister but it does to her government.

They should start making a serious attempt at understanding what is at stake, because this is a very complex issue. Yesterday, we presented a number of amendments that I feel were entirely appropriate and justified, but they did not pass. They were defeated.

I will go back to what we proposed yesterday to explain why normally, these amendments should have been accepted by everyone.

We should recall that Bill C-48 was introduced as part of the present government's plan to restructure the federal public service. The purpose of the bill before the House today is to legislate the creation of the Department of Natural Resources. Once the bill is passed, one minister will have the powers and duties that today are vested in the ministers referred to in the Department of Forestry Act and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act. As far as this bill is concerned, obviously we cannot object to bringing Forestry and Energy, Mines and Resources together in a single department. Of course not.

As such, this is a laudable objective. Regrouping certain duties to provide a better service may be justified, provided they are ours to regroup. That would not seem to be the case when we are talking about natural resources. I will get back to this later on, because I feel the present government failed to take advantage of this opportunity to reach an understanding with Quebec and the other Canadian provinces.

I also feel that if this government had done what it should have done, today we would be able to say that it fully intends to respect its partners. That is not the case, and unfortunately, I see no sign of it in this bill. In fact, I see more duplication.

According to the bill before the House today, the term natural resources is applied to all resources mentioned in the Department of Forestry Act and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act. This means that anything connected with natural resources is affected by this bill.

Furthermore, and this is very important, the bill refers to integrated management and sustainable development, which we

fully endorse. Those are principles we in the Bloc are prepared to support, because, as I said before, this is very important for the future of our children and grandchildren.

These principles are already being applied in my riding, in Matapédia-Matane, and more specifically in connection with forest management. We did not invent these principles but we support them wholeheartedly. In the last 20 years, we have really invested in our forests, and there are some wonderful things to see and some wonderful things are happening as a result of our efforts.

In my opinion, it is no longer possible to speak about development of natural resources without speaking about sustainable development. The bill before us therefore has the advantage, and we support this, of applying the principle of integrated management and sustainable development to all natural resources.

This being said, I and my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois understand perfectly well that the objective of the present bill is to formalize what is actually taking place.

I hope that our colleagues in the Liberal Party do not expect us to support this bill to establish the Department of Natural Resources. It is a bill to which we have no trouble speaking. Quebecers elected us, a sovereignist party, to defend the interests of Quebec and, at the same time, to initiate dialogue with the rest of Canada, with a view to laying the groundwork for our eventual sovereignty.

I note, however, that the present Liberal government seems to has absolutely no intention of respecting the jurisdiction of Quebec or even that of the other provinces, although this jurisdiction was conferred under the Constitution that governs us. I would remind the government that natural resources are a provincial responsibility, under the Constitution of 1867, and that this right was reaffirmed by the 1982 Liberal coup.

So much for this government's respect for its partners. By establishing this department, the government repudiates the basic principles which should govern efficient management of this country. It also creates a new bone of contention between the provinces, the territories and itself.

I will never lay enough stress on this issue. I have said it before and I repeat: Natural resources are a provincial area of jurisdiction in which the federal government has no business. We have to defend Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over natural resources and will always do so.

We, in the Bloc Quebecois, would renege on our promises and most of all neglect the mandate our constituents have given us, if we were to keep quiet about the federal government's involvement in an exclusively provincial area of jurisdiction. We cannot stand idly by in the face of such an attack and a bill which, as it stands now, is an affront to the politicians in Quebec and the other Canadian provinces.

I do not understand how they can boast that they are acting in the best interests of the country, when they do not even abide by their own Constitution. If the government really wanted to respect the terms of the Constitution of Canada, it would abolish the Department of Natural Resources and let the provinces manage this area which comes under their own jurisdiction.

Since the very beginning, every successive Quebec government has defended the provincial areas of jurisdiction defined in the Canadian Constitution, starting with Mr. Lesage, "Masters in our own house", and then Mr. Johnson, "Sovereignty or Independence", but even before their time, Quebec had always requested provincial autonomy.

Even the more federalist of the Quebec premiers have insisted that the Constitution be fully applied, especially in the area of natural resources.

As is, this bill allows the government to enter into agreements with organizations as well as individuals and companies. It allows the government to award contracts in the natural resources and forestry sectors, even to individuals. Yet, the achievement of 1982, the 1982 Constitution Act, defines very clearly the provincial areas of jurisdiction enshrined in section 92(a) concerning the development, conservation and management of forest resources, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom.

Every successive Quebec government has asked that Quebec jurisdiction over natural resources be respected and now this bill negates these repeated requests.

Just one year ago, a known federalist, Quebec minister Sirros, stated in the National Assembly Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over the management of natural resources over the Quebec territory. It seems that this government did not pay heed to his call, since we have here an Act to establish the Department of Natural Resources, which, if this bill is passed, will have full jurisdiction in this area.

With this bill, the Canadian government assumes powers and rights that directly infringe upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces in terms of natural resources and this, to us, is unacceptable.

Clause 27.3(1)( c ) of Bill C-48 is a very good example. It reads: c ) may enter into agreements with the government of any

province or with any person-

This is where the problem lies:

-for forest protection and management or forest utilization, for the conduct of research related thereto or for forestry publicity or education;

If there is an area in which we, Quebecers, have excelled, it is forestry. If there is an area which is truly ours since 1867, it is also forestry. And yet, Bill C-48 allows the Canadian government to put Quebec's jurisdiction aside and to enter into agreements with individuals, organizations and companies.

If at least the government had included an obligation to consult the governments of Quebec or the other provinces concerned, Bill C-48 would not have been acceptable, but it could have been less offensive, less detrimental to federal-provincial relations.

Clause 35 is a good example of this desire to interfere in an area under provincial jurisdiction. In order to understand the significance of this clause, I think it is worth reading it again. It reads as follows:

1. The Minister may cause distribution to be made of duplicate specimens to scientific, literary and educational institutions in Canada and other countries, and may authorize the distribution or sale of publications, maps and other documents issued by the Department.

There is nothing too serious up to that point. I will continue:

1. Subject to section 4 of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources Act respecting the powers, duties and functions of the Minister in relation to matters mentioned in that section over which Parliament has jurisdiction, the Minister shall be responsible for coordinating, promoting and recommending national policies and programs with respect to energy, mines and minerals, water and other resources-

All this in an area under provincial jurisdiction. Clause 35 of the bill goes on as follows:

-and, in carrying out his responsibilities under this section, the Minister may

(a) conduct applied and basic research programs and investigations and economic studies in relation to those resources, and for that purpose maintain and operate research institutes, laboratories, observatories and other facilities for exploration and research related to the source, origin, properties, development or use of those resources;

Again, all this in an area under provincial jurisdiction. Let us move on. The Minister can:

(b) study, keep under review and consider recommendations with respect to matters relating to the exploration for, or the production, recovery, manufacture, processing, transmission, transportation, distribution, sale, purchase, exchange or disposition of any of those resources, and with respect to matters relating to the sources of those resources within or outside Canada.

We are still in an area of provincial jurisdiction as recognized by the Canadian Constitution. But the highlight of the bill is undoubtedly the following paragraph.

7.(1) The Minister may, in exercising the powers and carrying out the duties and functions mentioned in section 6, formulate plans for the conservation, development and use of the resources specified in that section and for related research and the Minister may carry out those plans in cooperation with other departments, branches and agencies of the Government of Canada.

The federal government assumes all powers in an area which comes entirely under provincial jurisdiction. Allow me to draw to your attention the fact that provincial governments have not been mentioned once since the beginning of clause 35. Clause 35 concludes in these terms:

In formulating and carrying out any plans under subsection (1), the Minister may:

(a) cooperate with the provinces and with municipalities;

(b) enter into agreements with any person or body, including the government of any province or any department, branch or agency of such a government, respecting the carrying out of those plans; and

(c) make grants and contributions and, with the approval of the Governor in Council, provide other forms of financial assistance.

(3) The Minister may, in exercising the powers and carrying out the duties and functions mentioned in this section, including in relations to technical surveys, consult with, and inaugurate conferences of representatives of producers, industry, the universities, labour and provincial and municipal authorities.

That means the Minister can even go directly to municipalities without consulting the provincial authorities. In my opinion, clause 35 represents one of the worst attacks this government has ever made against powers handed down to provinces since it came to office. Voting against this bill is of the utmost importance.

Since when can the federal government enter into agreements with municipalities without the province's consent? Since when does the federal government have the right to invade a field of provincial jurisdiction without the province's agreement or without even having to consult it? Such an attitude leads me to believe that no understanding, no harmony is possible in a country where the central government acts without the agreement of its main partners. One would think that this government cannot read its own Constitution, that of Canada. One would think that it is deaf when it comes to Quebec's and the provinces' claims.

What we see with Bill C-48 is a government insisting on trespassing on an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the legitimacy that the explicit agreement of Quebec would confer on its action. A government which is getting involved in the writing of Canada-wide standards regarding natural resources. A government which has not learned from past mistakes and still believes that coast-to-coast policies are the key to collective wealth. This is completely false.

It is also a government which is harbouring the very same illusions it denounced in the past. This government is giving itself the means to act directly, without anybody's agreement, particularly that of the main stakeholders, the provinces, by

financing agencies or individuals directly. It is also a government which is bypassing the provinces, dealing directly with municipal governments, even though, under the 1867 Constitution, they come under the authority of provincial governments.

Finally, Bill C-48 confirms that this government could not care less about the claims of Quebec and the provinces and that it intends, as much as possible, to disregard the Constitution which governs us, in order to act as it pleases and achieve its ends, no matter what the cost to taxpayers in Quebec and this country.

I will bet that many of my colleagues from the other provinces agree with me. I will bet that many of my colleagues opposite think the same way but will never dare come out into the open about it, for fear of being repudiated by their own government. Let me tell them any way that such unsolicited federal interventions in a provincial area of jurisdiction cause awful overlapping all over the place.

We are going through difficult economic times. The provinces already have long-established natural resources strategies. What is the federal government doing if not duplicating whatever is already there? I am sure that Canadian taxpayers, to whom this government is so committed, would not approve of this. If they were asked tomorrow if they agreed with paying double for the sake of satisfying this government's centralizing designs, I know what they would say. Their answer would be a clear one. I am sure that they would never agree that the current Liberal government act this way. As far as we, in Quebec, are concerned, it goes without saying that we will not accept this disgraceful luxury of paying double all the time.

Let me give you an example with respect to forest management, over which this government is unduly assuming power by establishing the Department of Natural Resources. The provincial strategy tabled by the government of Quebec in May 1994 illustrates my point. This strategy is well and truly independent from the National Forest Strategy developed by the federal government and the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. The people of Quebec have to pay for both strategies. The people from my riding have to pay for both. We are sick and tired of that.

This government completely disregards the Constitution that governs it. It has also completely disregarded the very legitimate demands of all Quebecers for at least 30 years. The time has come for Quebecers to make a decision that will allow them to finally exercise the powers they are entitled to.

In November 1990, the House Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries, although made up of hard-core federalists, said that in the 20th century, the government tried several times to influence national forestry policies, but that it encountered provincial resistance to any potential interference in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Committee members felt that the federal government clearly had to play a much more serious role in guaranteeing the success of any national forestry policy.

We must come to the conclusion that the current government has not learned anything from the past. We also note that, although many observers recommended that the federal government take the Constitution into account in dealing with natural resources, this government continues to display the same interfering and contemptuous attitude toward a level of government which nonetheless has jurisdiction over natural resources. Quebec has always demanded the same powers over natural resources and forestry. Quebec was opposed to creating the Department of Forestry, which it rightly saw as federal interference in an area of provincial jurisdiction.

Quebec also did not ratify the National Forest Strategy. Since 1991, after the resounding failure of the Meech Lake Accord, no Quebec minister has participated in the activities of the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. In fact, Quebec just recently released its own strategy on forest management. It is certainly its prerogative, considering that this sector falls under provincial jurisdiction.

We will never support Bill C-48. We will never tolerate this undue and unacceptable interference in a field of provincial jurisdiction. I am not just referring to Quebec but also to the other provinces. We will never tolerate this unjustifiable desire to deprive another level of government of its vested powers. As Bloc Quebecois members, we will never support this kind of action.

Nor will taxpayers, and particularly those in my riding of Matapédia-Matane, ever let those who govern waste public money by duplicating services. As the elected representatives of Quebecers, we will never let the government ruin the efforts of generations of Quebecers to develop their natural resources the way they wanted to do it.

I hope that members will seriously consider the implications of this bill and will send the government back to the drawing board. If necessary, I will be pleased to make my plea again and again, because the government does not have the right to resort to useless duplication in order to gain some specific power. Since it took office, this government has been centralizing over and over. This legislation is yet another attempt to gnaw away at the powers of Quebec and the other provinces. The government is increasingly bent on gaining power, instead of trying to manage taxpayers' money. The Bloc Quebecois will oppose any such attempt to gain power.

[Supply, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this will be a brief comment, and I also have a question for the hon. member.

I certainly agree with the Reform Party on one point. I think giving a pension to someone who is 27 or 30 years old is really too much, because these pensions are paid for with taxpayers' money.

The question is this: When they compare members in this House with the private sector, when they refer to the private sector in this motion, what do they mean? Do they mean seasonal workers or people in management? Do they mean professionals or individuals who unfortunately had to drop out of school very early and start work at a very young age? I want to ask the hon. member what he is comparing us with when he compares us with the private sector?

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, November 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for Abitibi on presenting these amendments.

Earlier, in this House the Bloc was accused of playing politics. I do not think standing on our rights is playing politics. I do not think talking about Quebec's history is playing politics. To support my case, I would refer hon. members to a federalist and a Liberal to boot, but a great man just the same: Jean Lesage. In 1960, Mr. Lesage said that resource development was exclusively a matter of provincial jurisdiction and that it was part of the rights and priority requirements of the provinces, which were in a better position than the federal government to take effective and lasting action. That was Jean Lesage, who sat in this very House.

He also said that one of the fundamental rules of our federalism should be that Parliament's exceptional powers should be just that and not be used to encroach on areas that were normally the responsibility of the provinces. Some people might say, sure, but what about the development plan for Eastern Quebec? Is that not a valid exception? They are right, but it should remain an exception, as Mr. Lesage said.

I could also quote what was said by two of his predecessors. Daniel Johnson senior, certainly more of a nationalist than his namesake, referred to exclusive jurisdiction over the exploration, conservation and development of natural resources. I could also quote what was said by Jean-Jacques Bertrand. In any case, what we in Quebec want, and I hope the other provinces do as well, is to prevent the federal government from dealing directly with individuals, because when I read the bill, it says the federal government would be able to deal with the provinces or with persons. I think eventually, this would mean not duplication but three levels of intervention, not all of which would be governmental, since it would be possible to deal directly with individuals, over the heads of the provincial governments, and we object to that.

When it talks about co-operation, the federal government should say to the provinces: What are your demands? What do you want? In that case, the lines would be clearly drawn. Co-operation would be on a fair and equitable basis, which is what we want, and that is also the purpose of the amendments we proposed. I hope that everyone in this House will realize that this is not just for Quebec and that these amendments are useful for Manitoba, Ontario and all the other provinces, and I would ask both sides of the House for their support in adopting these amendments.

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, November 21st, 1994]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-48, in clause 35, be amended by replacing line 39, on page 11, with the following:

"ter may, at the request of all the provinces".

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, November 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I shall conclude. When there is no precise date, we notice that it takes a very long time to get information.

By setting a precise date, our amendment would enable us to have more information and thus report back to our constituents and to taxpayers, who are entitled to this information. We want that information and that is the purpose of our amendment.

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, November 21st, 1994]

moves:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-48, in clause 7, be amended by replacing lines 27 to 35, on page 3, with the following:

"7. The Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament, not later than the fifth sitting day of that House after January 31 next following the end of each fiscal year, a report showing the operations of the Department of Natural Resources for that fiscal year."

Mr. Speaker, I and my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois find it easy to speak to Bill C-48, an act to establish the Department of Natural Resources, because we, as a sovereignist party, were elected by Quebecers to defend the interests of Quebec and to initiate dialogue with the rest of Canada.

The purpose of the amendment we are now proposing is to ensure that we will have all the information necessary at the right time, in order to better defend the interests of the Quebec taxpayers who elected us. Before we become autonomous, I must ask and ensure that this government respect Quebec's jurisdiction and that there be no reduction in our existing authority through unilateral action by the federal government.

The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate unjustifiable delays. We are bound to defend Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction with respect to natural resources. However, in order to fulfil our mandate, we need all the information available. We would be remiss not to ask for this information, and we would not be serving those who elected us if we remained silent before this bill, which does not set out any specific date for the tabling of its annual report and which therefore leaves the administration with full latitude in this regard.

In Quebec, the electorate's choice in the last federal election could not have been clearer. For the first time in our history, a sovereignist party formed the official opposition in this House. In addition, we were elected with the mandate to monitor as

closely as possible the administration of the public interest. This means that Quebecers are calling for more autonomy, more sovereignty, more independence and, above all, greater transparency. They are demanding that our governments be increasingly transparent and that nothing be hidden from the taxpayers. This is the object of our amendment.

An end must be put to the proliferation of structures, to duplication and especially to cover-ups. Can it be held that the taxpayers or their representatives, which we are, have all the facts in hand before it is too late?

Unless complete information is provided by a given date, how do you expect us, elected representatives, to serve the people adequately? Our proposal has no other purpose but to serve the people adequately. We cannot allow this department not to be accountable to the people of Quebec and Canada. Quebecers and Canadians alike have had it; they are fed up with paying twice for the exact same services, services that cost $3 billion in Quebec alone. Imagine what this amounts to Canada-wide.

The requirement to table an annual report by a certain day will ensure that the effects of duplication cannot be concealed from the taxpayers and enable us to react much more quickly. We, Quebecers, would be much better off financially if we gained independence and had only one level of government. In the meantime, it is our duty to make sure that we get our money's worth. Rest assured that we will carry out our duty and demand that this government be as transparent as can be.

If public funds were managed better, we could do more for rural regions where unemployment has taken on nearly catastrophic proportions as well as develop our natural resources better. We could take care of our own business much more efficiently. Never will this government accept any real decentralization of its powers. It is therefore imperative that it be forced to report on scheduled dates.

I would just like to remind this House that the Department of Natural Resources has, in actual fact, been in operation since the summer of 1993. The provinces were not consulted beforehand.

I will also remind you that, under the existing Constitution, natural resources are an exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Could at least the Constitution that governs this country be abide by, so that we can serve our taxpayers better? No, this government would rather continue its flag fight. It will do its best to conceal as much of the facts as possible. So, the requirement for tabling an annual report by a certain day will give us a better chance of getting at least a minimum of information. This is an absolute necessity in a democracy to account to those who have elected you.

This government prefers to make its presence felt wherever it can, at any cost, while we are unable to react because more often than not, we do not have the information required to react at the right time.

As the Auditor General of Canada pointed out in his 1992 report on page 342 about the Department of Natural Resources: "Prudence in administration requires that outcomes and results be scrutinized in the context of their costs to determine whether Parliament and taxpayers are receiving what was paid for".

Once it is passed, Bill C-48 would invest the minister responsible with the powers, duties and functions now assigned to the Minister of Forestry and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The structure being established is therefore quite significant.

Our amendment, which is aimed at creating more openness and requiring this new or modified structure to table regularly scheduled reports, is totally justified in our opinion. The current government is hiding behind the principle of good government management established by the former government in 1993 as it sets out to create an independent Department of Natural Resources. The federal government is hiding behind the principle of good government management as it is about to interfere in another area of provincial jurisdiction.

The requirement to table the annual report by a certain date will probably bring our worst fears to light. It will become impossible to hide reality. This requirement will confirm that there is indeed encroachment and duplication and that taxpayers do not really receive what they pay for.

This government is hiding behind the principle of good government management to create another area of dual jurisdiction. The first amendment we want to see adopted-and I hope we will have the full and total support of this House and the government-reads as follows:

The Minister shall cause to be laid before each House of Parliament, not later than the fifth sitting day of that House after January 31 next following the end of each fiscal year, a report showing the operations of the Department of Natural Resources for that fiscal year.

Knowing how slow government administration usually is, we cannot leave it up to the minister to table this report before each House of Parliament as he or she sees fit, as soon as practicable after the report is prepared.

What does "as soon as practicable" mean? What does it mean to the government machinery? Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker. It means absolutely nothing. I will give you an example: I asked the Minister of Natural Resources for a report she had asked experts to write about the Eastern Quebec Development Plan, which should have been renewed months ago. The minister has

had this report for a long time. Although I have asked for it nearly every day, I still have not received it. That is government machinery for you.

[Social Security Program, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said earlier that her children never had to rely on UI benefits. This is great, but it is not the case for us. Our mothers and fathers have a lot of heart. Still, many children claim UI benefits not because they want to, but because they have to.

The government will create two classes of unemployed. One for those who occasionally claim UI benefits, like once every five years, and the other for those who do so almost annually.

Where I come from, around November, workers have to claim UI benefits again, because they are out of work. They are jobless.

I worked for the agency and for other organizations to generate work. Back home, a great number of people do their utmost to create jobs, not only through programs but in the field. People in my region are extremely disappointed by the minister's reform. They know that they have no choice but to rely on UI benefits every year. Yet, the new reform provides for cuts in those benefits as well as for more work weeks, something which is impossible in the Gaspe Peninsula.

We asked, among other things, that the Eastern Quebec Development Plan for forestry workers be extended. We made representations. This morning I made a statement pursuant to Standing Order 31. This is cumbersome. The government does not understand. It does not understand that, in the Gaspe Peninsula, the Lower St. Lawrence region and the riding of Matapédia-Matane, the issues are not necessarily the same as in Toronto or Calgary.

The hon. member told us that her children never had to rely on UI benefits. I congratulate her and her children, but I also tell her that the situation is not the same for everyone. I hope she will realize that.

I want to make another point. If tuition fees go up, a very large number of students from the Gaspe, Matapédia-Matane and Lower St. Lawrence regions will not be able to attend university. In my region, the university is located in Rimouski and not every subject is taught there. Consequently, some students have to go to Laval university, in Quebec City, or to Montreal, thus incurring extra costs. If they go home once a month, they have to pay for their transportation costs and also spend extra money on food and lodging. If, on top of that, tuition fees are increased, as many as half the student population in my region may not be able to go on. Even today, the total number of those who can afford to attend university is lower than elsewhere. Therefore, my region is adversely affected by this measure.

If the hon. member cares about those who live in rural and remote areas and who will not be able to go to university because of that reform, what would she tell the unemployed in my region who want to work but cannot find jobs? I would appreciate an answer on these two issues.

[Eastern Quebec Development Plan, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I denounce the inertia of the present government, which is not keeping its commitments and its election promises. It promised to maintain and extend the Eastern Quebec Development Plan until 1998.

For months, things have been dragging out. This government's lack of leadership is creating an untenable and discouraging situation for the 5,800 forestry workers in eastern Quebec and the Gaspé. They want to work. This government, which clamored "jobs, jobs" during the election campaign, now refuses to give real support to those who want to work.

This government does not give a damn about rural communities and it is taking the forestry workers hostage. When will it give an answer? It should be as soon as possible.