René Canuel

[Regional Development, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.

Does the minister recognize that his repeated attempts to increase federal government visibility in the regions only increases duplication between Ottawa and Quebec and that, in the end, it is the taxpayers and the regions that pay the shot?

[Regional Development, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

The federal government has announced the establishment of 13 regional offices to provide one-stop service to small- and medium-sized businesses.

The federal government has also confirmed its plans to interfere further with regional development, in spite of the consensus in Quebec for full powers to the province in this area.

Does the minister recognize that, after dismissing Quebec's claims over manpower training, Ottawa is about to do the very same thing with regional development? Is that the kind of co-operation we were promised by Ottawa?

[Forestry Development, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has been telling us for several months now that she is going to meet with these people, but she keeps on postponing her visit. Do you realize that your lack of action, the inaction of your government, is creating an unhealthy climate of uncertainty for the 5,800 woodlot owners in these regions? They are very worried.

[Forestry Development, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec. We would like to remind him that the Eastern Quebec Development Plan affects 5,800 woodlot owners in that area. The Bloc Quebecois has been asking the same questions for months, but the federal government has yet to confirm its intentions regarding the Eastern Quebec Development Plan.

What is the government waiting for to go ahead and extend the plan until a regional forestry development agency is created?

[Social Security Programs, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked a very good question and I am very proud of him. Of course, there are ways to make it better. I will give you at least one example. The money we could spend on forestry, say, is not a subsidy but an investment. Mr. De Bané himself said when he was a minister a few years ago-he is now a senator, unfortunately-that it is an investment. Replanting forests no longer replenished by nature is an investment. There are so many other examples I could give you. We could hire twice as many forestry workers since lumber is now in great demand. They are reluctant to do that.

In my region, they have the Eastern Plan, which my colleague from Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is very familiar with. We fervently hope that it will be renewed as it can put people to work. Let me give you just one example in forestry.

Most farm owners tell me that they only have two people working on their farms when there is often enough work for five people. These small farmers cannot afford to pay decent wages to their employees. Something could be done. We could create hundreds of jobs that would be extremely valuable to the whole community and would in turn benefit both the federal and the provincial governments.

I could of course give you other examples but I will limit myself to these two just to show you that it is possible to create jobs.

The federal government is very wary whenever we offer solutions.

[Social Security Programs, October 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak about the reform of the Canadian social security system. Earlier I heard the hon. member say: "We have difficult choices to make". It seems to me that the choices are not so difficult.

I also often heard the other side ask us to propose something. I have a proposal for you. I realize how difficult it is for the other side to make choices. When a bill aimed at changing the rules of political party financing was introduced 15 days ago, some members on the other side voted with us but most voted against us because their very wealthy friends put money in their coffers. It is easy to understand how subsequent choices can be extremely difficult to make.

True, there are two choices. But why did we have to choose? In Mr. Trudeau's time, the government got this country into debt by going on a spending spree that continued under the Conservatives. It was not the fault of the opposition parties, not the Reform Party's, not ours and not the NDP's. They were not in power. Who got Canada into debt during the past 30 years? The two parties that were in power. We have a debt of $530 billion, with $40 billion worth of interest payments, and as a result there are some choices we must make.

Which option do we choose? Are we going to take money from the haves or are we going to empty the pockets of the have-nots? We say get it where it is to be found. Let us do it, let us raise billions of dollars from family trusts, people who do not pay income tax and the multinationals in this country. That is where we should get those billions of dollars. Not the pennies in the pockets of the poor.

That is what I would do. And now, a look at the other side. Last week, the Canadian Council on Social Development again sounded the alarm when it noted the distressing fact that more than one million children do not get enough to eat. One million children! In the schools where I taught, many children went without lunch. Fortunately, there were some Good Samaritans who paid for their meals. Why did these children go without food?

Their parents were in debt. They had three or four children, and they bought a car, chain saw and boat on credit, and when school started, they also had to buy books and exercise books. They had to pay the student association membership. There was no money left for food. I am convinced that the purpose of social security reform in this country should be to fight poverty, not the poor. So far, the trend has been to take money away from the poorest in our society, and that is how I see this reform.

The objective should be,in this supposedly great and beautiful country, to create more social justice, not to come down harder on the neediest, the disenfranchised and the weakest members of our society. The objective should be to ensure a better distribution of wealth, which is not the case today. The rich are getting richer, while the poor have for years and years been getting poorer.

I am not convinced that this is what the minister responsible had in mind, and I am not convinced that what he had in mind is right for this government. The unstated objective of this reform, as I see it, is solely and entirely to reduce government spending by penalizing more and more the disadvantaged, those who cannot speak for themselves.

Conservative policies of this sort have the effect of causing a dramatic rise in unemployment and poverty levels in this country. Conservative policies are directly responsible for the systematic impoverishment of the middle class and lower-income taxpayers.

This government acts like a producer who would stop feeding his cattle. Do you think that is the way to increase production? Do you think he would achieve better results by cutting rations? Do you think he would get a better yield if he stopped cultivating his land? To get results, investments must be made in the right places and cuts must also be made in the right places.

Cutting in postsecondary education will make it impossible for a large number of people to get adequate training. Because, as I have pointed out repeatedly, there are still no general and vocational colleges in my region-there is one in Matane- and no universities-you have to go to Rimouski, Quebec, Laval, Montreal- cuts in postsecondary education will mean that hundreds of students will not be able to further their education.

If the costs double or triple, we will no longer be able to afford sending our young people to university. The university in Rimouski is great, except that it does not offer all programs. That is why we have to go to Laval or some other university. Cutting in postsecondary education certainly is not a good way to help the labour force adjust to the present conditions of the future labour market.

Literally crushing seasonal workers and the poorest of the poor by creating two categories of UI recipients certainly is not the best way to restore hope in our society. In our region, forestry workers have work for only four or five months each year; those who get to work five months are considered extremely lucky. During this period, because it is a very short period, they start work very early in the morning and finish very late at night. Many totally wreck their health in the process. If they undergo any more conditioning, this will increase their stress load.

A few years ago, a family man had to keep chopping down trees even if he was very sick because he had to collect enough stamps, not because he did not want to work. Quebecers, especially the people in my riding, want to work. The unemployment rate in my riding is among the highest. The people want to work. They want the jobs that were promised by the Prime Minister during the election campaign. That is all we heard during the election campaign: jobs, jobs and more jobs.

The lack of jobs makes these people feel insecure and helpless. They appear to be almost ashamed, even when they are working.

This government has waited much too long, even if it has been a year-just as previous governments waited too long-to find decent jobs for the people in the regions, especially rural regions. If this government wants respect, it should start by respecting the poor. Only then will it command our respect.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, listening to my colleague, I realize it is true that the deficit is very high. It is true that we pay $40 billion just in debt charges. And I agree that something has to be done about it. But at the same time, I wonder why the debt has grown so much. How did that happen?

Why does a country like Canada have to pay so much interest on its debt, a country said to be rich, rich in natural resources as well as human resources? How is that possible? If we look back, what party was in power in Canada before this government and the previous Conservative government? The Liberals. They are the ones who have put into debt to a dramatic extent not only our generation, but also and mainly our children and grandchildren.

They are the ones who should bear the responsibility. Today, we take stock and, of course, realize that the situation has become unbearable. So, they have to take the bull by the horns and they will stop at nothing to achieve their aims. When a family experiences financial difficulties, what does it do? There were prosperous times for this family in the past, but what does it do now? The first thing to go is one of the two cars it owns. Then the cottage. That is where cuts start in families. Do they start by taking away the bread and butter from the table for the children?

As I see it, this reform will penalize the poorest of the poor. There are two categories of unemployed workers; first, the good ones, that is to say those who require almost no assistance, who are out of work on a temporary basis. The second category includes people from my region who are seasonal workers such as silviculture workers. These people want to work. I know, I was the president of their society for many years and they would tell me: "Give us work. We want to work." We could do nothing for them.

What is happening here is that these people, who want to work and put their hearts into their work, will be penalized. When spring comes, they get all anxious. They wonder: "Will there be work for us?" And the industry does its very best to find work for them, in co-operation with the town councils, companies, producers' syndicates, and to put them to work. But work eventually runs out and, every year, these workers end up on unemployment again, naturally. These people will be penalized.

In my region in particular, and I like to stress this point because students tell me to repeat this every occasion I have, the university is far from home, and the Univervité du Québec in Rimouski offers only certain programs. This means going away to Quebec City, Montreal or elsewhere to study. If cuts are made in postsecondary education, then our students will get further into debt, and this is true for all students in Canada of course. It is estimated that university students with a doctorate are $50,000 in debt and have no job prospects when they graduate. Wherever they send a CV, they get the same answer back: "Sorry, we have no work for you".

I fail to understand why, after putting the country this many billions of dollars into debt, the first thing to be cut -and that the most infuriating and frustrating-is assistance to the poor, the underprivileged, those who cannot speak for themselves, while the rich get to keep their family trusts, for example. The government does not dare do anything that would affect them. That is understandable, given they are the ones who fill the campaign coffers. They fill them and keep filling them. The other day, a proposal to put election financing in order was rejected. I commend nonetheless those members opposite who voted for this proposal. But no thought is given to this. They do not want to, because friends help one another. It is not the poor, the vulnerable, who will help my fellow members; it is the wealthiest.

I strongly deplore this situation, particularly for rural residents, not to mention Gaspé fishermen who will be hit hard. I find it unacceptable for my region, for Quebec's rural ridings-and I imagine it is the same thing elsewhere. I do not understand how my colleague can say that these measures will be good for the most vulnerable. If he can prove it to me, let him do so.

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the Charlottetown accord, if that is what my hon. colleague is referring to, we did ask for total jurisdiction over forests. That is why we are going to have to hold a referendum: to obtain it. Quebec receives federal funding. It needs that money, and as long as we are part of this country, that is our money too.

As I said, Quebec did not sign the national strategy. We did not sign it. Sometimes deputy ministers travel. The fact remains that we did not sign. My hon. colleague from Ontario says that Quebec received millions of dollars, but then Ontario received transfer payments for regional development. So, there is compensation on both sides.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague this: does he agree with me that the federal government has very long arms when it come to grabbing, controlling, strangling the provinces even more? We in Quebec object to that. We do not refuse the money. We need it. It is just that we should be compensated and that is precisely what Quebec has been asking for since Lesage and Johnson. That is what we are asking for, and we have been asking for this for over 30 years.

It seems to me that this bill goes beyond the purview of the Constitution. I would like him to comment on that.

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in Bill C-48 before the House today, the federal government assumes rights and powers that directly encroach on the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces over natural resources. This is unacceptable. Apparently, the federal government is unable to read what is said in the Canadian Constitution and refuses to listen to Quebec's demands.

What we see in Bill C-48 is a federal government that continues to get involved in a jurisdiction that is Quebec's exclusively. It assumes the power to go over the heads of the provinces and Quebec, directly funding organizations and individuals.

The federal government prefers to ignore Quebec's demands, but I am willing to bet that many of my colleagues in the other provinces share my position. I would like to say the following for their benefit. These unwanted intrusions by the federal government lead to overlap between provincial and federal strategies for developing this sector, especially since many provinces have already set up their own strategies for promoting, regulating and developing their natural resources.

Quebec's forest management strategy tabled last May by the Quebec government is a good example. The strategy is entirely independent from the National Forest Strategy developed by the federal government and the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers.

The Government of Quebec has to provide funding for both strategies. However, successive federal governments have ignored what is said in the Canadian Constitution as well as the legitimate demands of the Government of Quebec.

Take, for instance, the report of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Forestry and Fisheries, in November 1990, about the struggle of provinces to defend their jurisdiction over natural resources. The committee says that in the course of the twentieth century, the government had on several occasions tried to affect national policy in the forestry sector but had sometimes met with resistance by the provinces to any potential encroachment on their jurisdictions.

The committee felt it was clear that the federal government had to play a more credible role to guarantee the success of all these national forestry strategies.

Although the committee suggests it is necessary to obtain the co-operation of the provinces, it is clear that the federal government has felt free to intervene in this area without the specific consent of the Government of Quebec.

Quebec protested, to no avail, against the creation of a Department of Forestry, quite properly seeing this as an intrusion in one of its jurisdictions. Quebec did not sign the National Forest Strategy. Since 1991, after the demise of Meech Lake, no Quebec ministers have been involved in the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. Quebec has just released its own strategy for forest management, as is its right in matters over which it has exclusive jurisdiction.

How can the federal government legitimately intervene in an area that falls under provincial jurisdiction? How can it claim to act in the best interests of Quebecers, when for years it has ignored both its own Constitution and the demands of successive governments of Quebec?

Obviously, the Liberal government's stated desire to put an end to overlap and duplication would be a perfect excuse for getting rid of the Department of Natural Resources or letting provinces opt out of federal programs that involve natural resources.

Perhaps I may compare the mandate of the Department of Natural Resources of Quebec with that of the Department of Natural Resources of Canada.

Based on the analysis of federal-provincial overlapping carried out by the Treasury Board of Canada in 1991, the activities of the federal Department of Natural Resources and its Quebec counterpart overlap to a large extent.

That is why I would like to propose an amendment to Bill C-48, an amendment respectful of the Constitution of Canada and respectful of Quebec's traditional demands. Here is my amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Frontenac:

That every word following "that" be struck out and replaced by the following:

this House refuse to give second reading to Bill C-48, an Act to establish the Department of Natural Resources and to amend related acts, because the principle of the bill does not provide for granting the minister the power to compensate Quebec if the province decided to exercise by itself the exclusive jurisdiction over natural resources it was conferred under the Constitution Act of 1867 and 1982.

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, September 27th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and I understand full well that the purpose of this bill is to ratify what is already a fact; a pure formality, it seems. I dearly hope that our colleagues in the Liberal Party do not expect us to ratify this bill establishing the Department of Natural Resources.

It is easy for us to speak on the subject of natural resources. Quebecers elected us, members of a sovereignist party, both to defend Quebec's interests and to begin the dialogue with the rest of Canada in order to prepare Quebec's accession to sovereignty. It is essential for us to defend Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over natural resources. We would be acting contrary to our mandate and the will of those who elected us if we did not speak out against this bill.

All governments of Quebec have always demanded respect for provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution. The Constitution Act, 1982 describes provincial powers fairly precisely under section 92(a) with respect to the exploitation, conservation and management of forest resources, including the rate of primary production.

This position was maintained by the Government of Quebec when the former Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Sirros, said in the National Assembly on May 25 that the full authority of the Government of Quebec for managing natural resources on its territory-