Debates of June 2nd, 1994

Supply

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Yes, you are.

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

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.

[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.

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

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.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

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.

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

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.

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.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

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?

[Bernard Deshaies, Bloc, Abitibi, QC]

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.

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[Jean Payne, Liberal, St. John's West, NL]

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.

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.

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

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?

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

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.

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.

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

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-

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

What has that to do with my comments? You are not answering what I said!

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

No, but it does not matter.

[An hon. member]

No question was asked!

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

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.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

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.

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.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

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.

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.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

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.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

They are sovereign states.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

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

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?