House of Commons Hansard #77 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was regions.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:40 a.m.

Liberal

Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais Liberal Madawaska—Victoria, NB

Mr. Speaker, it is all right, Kamouraska and Madawaska are quite close to each other.

I think it is very appropriate that a Reform member would indicate today to this House that he is on the same wavelength as the Bloc and that his party shares the same vision as the Bloc partisans about the problems we face and the solution they advocate.

I also want to mention to the hon. member who put forward this motion, in which he expressed his concern about overlappings and inconsistencies in the regional economic development policies, that we have indeed seen in the past, and particularly in the last few years, a proliferation of programs with no realistic goals.

The hon. member has a point there. However, I want to point out to him that, in the last six months, the Liberal government has put forth its vision and its action plan. The hon. member must recognize the value of the infrastructure program which currently involves all levels of government: municipal, provincial as well as federal.

The infrastructure program implemented by the Liberal government these last few months gives you a concrete example of how this government intends to run the country. Nobody can say that the infrastructure program we just created is inconsistent and does not take into account the needs of the provinces and the communities, because there would be no national infrastructure program if communities had not submitted proposals approved by the provincial as well as by the federal authorities.

So, I believe that the Liberals in this House have, in fact, shown the leadership both Canada and Quebec need at this time.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, the infrastructure program mentioned by the hon. member is an excellent example. It is a good idea to provide our communities and regions with the adequate equipment but, when it comes to the Kamouraska sewer system-for which we got a very good investment in the infrastructure program; in any case, it is a good thing that the regional development critic could get it, since it proves that we can also have the true power-should we need the authorization of all levels of government, municipal, provincial as well as federal, to decide if this hamlet of 500 people needs a sewer system?

This program was said to be interesting but it is quite inadequate regarding job creation. To me, what has much more of an impact now is the decision to increase the number of weeks of insurable employment while reducing the number of weeks of unemployment insurance benefit. This will cut 1.3 billion dollars in the Maritimes and in Quebec. As you will see, the economic impact will be even greater.

Measures might have been taken, in Bill C-17 for example, to immediately roll back to $3 the contribution of the small- and medium-sized businesses or to provide for the small businesses to pay less and for the larger ones to pay more. Agreed, this would have insured less political visibility, but the economic impact would have been even greater and respectful of the local people's entrepreneurship.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I think that the 5 minute question period is over.

You want to ask a question of an hon. member from your own party. I would rather avoid this.

Resuming debate.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Bloc

Yvan Bernier Bloc Gaspé, QC

Mr. Speaker, since we deviated a bit from the normal process by allowing the Liberal Party to take more time than usual, I hope that hon. members will be given enough time to make their comments in a few moments.

Since the Liberals were given a five-minute extension, I would like the same extension to be given to the opposition for questions and comments.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member for Gaspé did not get my point when I said that the five-minute period was over. Unanimous consent was given for the five minutes.

The hon. Minister of Human Resources Development, on debate.

SupplyGovernment Orders

10:45 a.m.

Winnipeg South Centre Manitoba

Liberal

Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate carefully. It reminds me that just last week the United Nations development agency, which annually does a survey of the quality of life among all the countries of the world, concluded that once again Canadians have within this country the best, the most tolerant and the most generous system of any country in the world.

There is a reason for that. It is because throughout our history as a country we have learned to share. We have brought forward a number of programs in health care and social assistance, education and training to ensure there would be some basis of standards across the country, that there would not be large disparities and that people would feel they were being equally treated.

That fundamental reality seems to have escaped the hon. member who has presented this resolution. In fact the benefits his and my constituents have been able to enjoy are because we live in a country of wide diversity and wide differences of interest, but we have been willing to share. We have been willing to work and live together to produce a country which has good economic and human values.

Maybe the unfortunate part of what has happened since the last election is that there is now within the House of Commons an Official Opposition which does not recognize or even accept that fundamental achievement Canadians have been able to bring about over the some 130 years of our country's existence. Bloc members look only from the point of view of one, narrow, limited, regional perspective. They have no sense of what this country has been able to do.

As a result, they have totally and completely forgotten-conveniently, I would suggest-just how important federalism has been to ensure that the poorer regions of the country are given a real chance. In the early 1980s we wrote into the charter of rights the principle of regional equality. We are probably the only country in the world that has put that in as a basis of its Constitution. We have lived up to that time and time again with attempts, not perfect, but attempts to ensure that was lived out in practice.

I am surprised the hon. member in talking about regional economic development somehow conveniently forgot that one of the first acts of the Minister of Finance in this new government was to substantially change the formula for equalization to ensure that those wealthier areas of Canada would share more of their wealth with the poorer areas.

The hon. member's province was a major beneficiary of that program, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. No one was carping or criticizing or saying: "We reject it". The fact is we brought in a program to ensure there would be equal treatment across the country.

I submit that that is a good example of how Canadian federalism is a good way to share efforts and goods among all Canadians. Unfortunately, the hon. member refuses to recognize the value of federalism as a way to share good-will in this country.

Let me give another example. The hon. member talked about unemployment insurance. I presume he is aware that last year the net transfer to the province of Quebec, in the UI system, was close to $1 billion from the rest of the country to aid those who were facing unemployment in Quebec. It was even of higher value than that of the Atlantic provinces or northern Ontario. Nobody is criticizing. In fact we say that is the way the system is supposed to work. I find it incredible.

It is unbelievable that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Bouchard-

-is the one, as my colleague has said, who is going around upsetting the economy and talking about annexation of western Canada by the Americans. He is the one who is fragmenting, destroying and dividing the country. He is the one who is destroying the idea of equal sharing.

When the hon. member gets down from the pink cloud he has been living on for so long and comes back to reality, why does he not tell us how those transfer payments of equalization, unemployment insurance, the Canada Health Act, pension plans and student loans would be financed solely by that one province under its own resources when in fact it faces major debts?

Federalism has worked because we do not see each other in fragmentary bits and pieces, region by region. We see ourselves as one country. We realize if we can build the strength of all regions, we all benefit. That is why we have been prepared to share. That is the tragedy. The foolishness and silliness of what is going on today is that those members live in a dream world thinking that somehow everything would be better if only Quebec would separate. The hard economic reality is that is not true.

At some point there will be a reality check and I know where it will come from. The people in Quebec will make the very clear statement that it is all right for members of the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois to live in a dream world, but they understand the realities of a job and support for their families. They understand the decent idea that we can share across this country and all benefit from it, not by separating or fragmenting the country. That is the reality.

In our present system there are many ways in which we can aid and assist various regions to develop. The basic transfers I have just talked about are a key element of that, but we also have to undertake the kind of support for direct intervention, for direct development.

I listened with some interest to my friends from the Reform Party who said they do not like regional development policies either and get rid of them all. I heard the member who said get rid of them all.

Let me just speak for a moment about western Canada. I am responsible for the program on western diversification. Over the last several years about 40,000 to 50,000 jobs have been created in western Canada as a result of the direct support of western diversification. We are trying to take an economy that is living in the broad global context and give it boosts in technologies. I will give an example.

We have just completed a revamping of our programs so that we can aid smaller business. We will give repayable contributions only to those enterprises with less than 50 employees. It means those very small businesses, which today, as the hon. member knows, have serious trouble getting equity financing or credit from banks or other financial institutions, are being given assistance by the federal government. They will be able to expand plants, buy new technology, develop a new marketing structure and hire people so that they can compete just as well as the big guys.

Now there is another party saying to get rid of that program for small business support and assistance. Yet we know that about 80 per cent of the jobs will be created by small businesses with the kind of assistance they need.

I want to talk about western Canada because unfortunately the hon. member who talked about regional development only talked about one region. This debate deserves a somewhat broader context than that, because we are talking about Canada and all its regions. Let me give one working example which illustrates what I mean about how important it is not to deny small business the kind of assistance we can supply through our regional agencies.

Through our efforts we were able to form a consortium of 150 small food processing companies in western Canada. We analysed that in terms of the export market into the United States only 3 per cent of imported foodstuffs on American supermarket shelves were Canadian, even though we are their next door neighbour. One of the reasons is that much of our food processing in western Canada is small. We do not have the big Westons and others; we have smaller firms.

As the hon. member should know, a whole new series of quality tests and nutritional tests have to be met in order to export. A wide variety of standards have to be met in the United States, Japan and other places. Companies with 15 or 20 employees making something out of a grain product or a dairy product do not have the extra cash to mount that kind of research and development and do the testing.

We have encouraged those 150 companies to come together under the name Food Beverage Canada. We have appropriated the name Canada for western Canada but that is always done in Ontario anyway. The support supplied to that association enables them to undertake marketing, promotion and research testing. Those 150 companies can now begin to export into the United States on a much more rational and effective basis. Once again, it is another example of sharing.

It is the same thing with the Beef Export Federation where it was trying to develop a market niche in Japan. The hon. member knows that people in the western Canada beef industry are the ultimate representatives of free enterprise; they do not want government assistance. However, that association asked us if we would work with it and help develop a major market in Japan. That market has increased by 10, 15 or 20 per cent per year as a result of intervention by a regional development agency sponsored by the federal Government of Canada.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

An hon. member

They could have done it on their own.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Axworthy Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, listen to that. We now have another voice of reform saying: "They could have done it on their own".

The fact of the matter is that they could not do it on their own. They very clearly said that it was not within the cash flow position of the companies to develop longer staying power in a new market or to be there for a year or two to develop networks, develop products and get promotion going. Therefore they came together and said: "Give us a little help".

It has been a good investment because the money is being repaid. Last year we recovered $30 million through western diversification of the contributions we made.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

An hon. member

We are putting people to work too.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11 a.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Axworthy Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Yes, we are putting people to work. We are sending out flyers and we have people working in western Canada. If the Reform Party had its way it would still be selling pork chops and beef steaks only to

Calgary and not to Osaka. It is a global marketplace and I wish the Reform Party would wake up to that fact.

There are areas where there clearly can be substantial changes and improvements. We have only been a government for six months and I will tell the House what we have done in that six months. The hon. member might like to know about this because clearly from his speech he does not have the full facts at his disposal.

We are beginning to work in each province with the development of single window delivery systems, both for the delivery of manpower programs and business service programs. We are setting up combined, integrated programs to bring together all federal departments and to provide single window delivery to save money. We are doing the same in the area of training.

Let me use this opportunity to clarify something. I want to be helpful; I really do. It is my great interest to try to help inform the Bloc Quebecois about reality. One myth it constantly puts forward in the House, and I have heard it several times, is that there is a $250 million waste on duplication in manpower training.

Do those members know where the figure came from? Do they have any idea? Maybe they read it in a newspaper. Do they know where the figure came from? I will tell them. We have analysed it very carefully.

It was not based on an examination of Canada. They said that overall in all 18 countries the average administrative cost was about 5 per cent or 6 per cent. Then someone said that it was 8 per cent in Quebec and therefore that must mean it is $250 million. That was based purely on the broadest concept. We said: "Let us go back and look at the figures". At the federal level we deliver our programs at less than 5 per cent in the province of Quebec, not at 7 or 8 per cent, which is one of the lowest figures of OECD countries.

Would they get confused by the facts? Should they not base their arguments on something that is real? They would prefer to live in cuckooland where everything is based on what we want to believe. They are the ultimate Alice in Wonderland party of "let us create a world of our own making and then say it is true, that it is real". Then they live in it.

The media in the last couple of weeks talked about annexations. The member does not belong in politics, he belongs in science fiction novels. I think he is missing his calling. I think he is a wasted talent. He should be writing children's fantasy books or science fiction novels. For goodness sake, he should deal with the reality of how the country works.

I am quite happy, as I have said throughout, to sit down and work effectively on what we can do as a country to eliminate duplication.

The Minister of Industry is working today on a plan to bring down interprovincial trade barriers. If there is any example of how to create real wealth in every region of the country, it is by bringing down the barriers to trade, regulation and manpower mobility. Who is doing it? The federal government is taking the leadership, not the individual provinces.

If the hon. member wants to create real wealth for his region, he should stand on his feet and say that he disavows separatist positions, that he will go to work to bring down the barriers among all provinces, and that is how to create real wealth and real jobs for the people in his region.

That is a real form of regional economic development, not creating more fragmentation, not dividing the country into further small pieces with higher walls. A much broader level playing field should be provided so that we can create a full discourse of commerce, people, capital resources and ideas.

We are living in a world where we need a critical mass of people and capital. The member is showing me some kind of book. I am pleased to know he can read. I appreciate his opportunities, but what does it have to do with the debate? He is showing us a story in a book called Global Paradox by John Naisbitt who is one heck of a good American analyst. I am talking about what is happening in Canada, not what the Americans say. That is what I am talking about.

The sooner members of the Bloc Quebecois stop reading the far out speculations of American commentators and get down to the hard reality of what is happening in Canada, the sooner they might change their position and their views.

All I can say to the hon. member is that I fully share the concerns.

I share their concern about unemployment and, like them, I recognize the need for a solid policy to increase employment in the area. But at the same time, we must admit that the best way to contribute to regional development is to develop co-operation among all levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal, great co-operation and to implement one-stop shopping for government services.

That is the way to approach it. We will be dedicating our full resources as a government to work at the regional level on specific programs with provinces, to ensure that all works of our different departments and ministries at a national level are dedicated to creating work throughout Canada, and at the same time try to ensure the maintenance of full financial equalization

and sharing throughout the country so that we can all live, as the United Nations says, as the best country in the world.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Minister of Human Resources Development said that he was happy to know that I could read. I want to tell him that I have a bachelor's degree in administration from Laval University. I also studied in English at UBC, in Vancouver, because I have an open mind and I would never make this kind of accusation. I am perfectly able to participate in debates on real issues, not on petty statements.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Bloc

Yvan Bernier Bloc Gaspé, QC

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is a minister who just spoke, and I hope all ministers in this government are not the same. However, I would like to say that I am glad it is this minister who spoke this morning because he represents the kind of federalism Quebecers reject. This minister was there at the time of Prime Minister Trudeau. This minister was there when Quebec suffered all those rejections.

I will try to lower my voice, Mr. Speaker, because it irritates my friends across the way to hear the truth. The first thing I wish to say, and I noted two or three points, of which the minister should also take note, because you must not forget that this morning Quebecers are watching you, Mr. Minister, and they now see what the Canada you represent is really like.

A little while ago, you said that the figures on manpower training were not right, etc. I would like to remind the minister that it is Mr. Bourbeau, a federalist in the Quebec Liberal Party, who mentioned the figure of $250 million. Am I to understand that the Liberal minister in Ottawa is calling a federalist minister in Quebec a liar? Is that what I must understand?

The other point I would like to underline is that this minister was there during the Trudeau years. I would like to give him an example of duplication between Quebec and Canada. In my riding, the province built a $23-million fish plant when there was fish-you will recall that before 1984 Quebec shared in the administration of fishing permits. Do you know what the federalists in those days, who are still across from us, did? They built a $16-million plant right beside the one built by Quebec. That is what they did. That is their kind of regional development. They come and undermine Quebec initiatives.

I have a few more questions. I have devastating figures about my riding which I would like to quote for the benefit of the minister of employment and immigration, even if he does not like to hear them. In my riding of Gaspé, the unemployment rate is 27 per cent. The labour force participation rate stands at 42 per cent. That means only four people out of ten are either working or looking for a job. What happened with the other six? The federalists discouraged them. What does this Liberal government have to offer? The recent budget froze the funding for help centres. We cannot get any money to promote the innovative suggestions of people in Gaspé and the whole province of Quebec. The minister is considering reforms, and, meanwhile, he cuts the funding. It does not make sense.

What about the Employment Development Program? I remind you that my region, with a 27 per cent unemployment rate and a 42 per cent participation rate, should be considered a disaster area, and should get enhanced EDP funding to put people back to work. Well, this funding has been cut, and is now reduced to 20 per cent of what it was before. The Federal Office of Regional Development has been subjected to a 25 per cent cut by the Martin budget, by the colleague of the minister who just spoke. Where are we going? What kind of logic is this? They wonder why we move a motion on regional development during an opposition day. They are slashing whatever help was left and they would like us to believe in federalism. I am sorry, but if the minister keeps talking the way he does, things will only be easier for us, come the referendum campaign.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Axworthy Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to say that I was definitely a member of Mr. Trudeau's governement and I am very proud of it. It is quite special because at that time, we defeated a proposal for the separation of Quebec.

And we will defeat it again.

I take this opportunity to make sure the facts are on the record. I remind members opposite of the impact of the new equalization formula with the provinces that we brought in a few months ago in the February budget. This is the value of the 1994 tax base update: Newfoundland, $7.6 million; P.E.I., $5 million; Nova Scotia, $.8 million; New Brunswick, $5.5; and Quebec, $70.8 million.

If there is a testament to the kind of federalism we want to build in the country, it is reflected in those kinds of numbers. We are prepared as a federal government working on a national tax base to bring together the wealth of a country and make sure it is divided and distributed in a way that helps regions with real needs. This demonstrates to me once again the falsity of the underlying premise of the resolution.

If the hon. member for Gaspé who just spoke wants another testament to what is happening, the people in the Gaspé are seriously affected by the downturn in the fishery and their resource industries. That is shared by other people in Atlantic Canada.

What he did not mention with the selective memory that the separatists seem to have is that the federal government has just introduced a $1.9 billion program for people in the fishing industry, including his own riding, through which it will be able to have substantial weekly benefits, go back to work, have support for training, for self-employment, for economic development, for community employment. It will be able to give some hope to its children by going back to work in a green corps to replace the fishery, enhance the resources, go back to work to actually rebuild the resource base of that region.

That was a federal program that we introduced and it would seem to me that the hon. member rather than complaining and carping should get to work and do his job as a member of Parliament and help that program work so his own people can go back to work.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I see three members rising to ask questions. I wonder if there is again a feeling of having unanimous consent to prolong this question period by five minutes.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member for Kootenay West-Revelstoke first. I see no consent to extend the question period beyond 10 minutes.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Reform Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC

Mr. Speaker, I can see after what the hon. member stated that he would not wish to extend the period to rebut the statements he made. He only wishes to extend it to rebut the statements of others.

The hon. member opposite said that the Bloc Quebecois does not check into the reality of how Canada works. I would suggest that the government has not checked into the reality of why the country is not working.

If you have a dog named Rory and the dog makes a mess of your house, you say you do not want this dog and you kick it out. A little while later you bring a dog in, a dog named Brick. Why should you be surprised if the dog makes the same mess of your house if it is the same dog with a different name?

There is a lot of selection going on here today. The hon. member talked about the selective memory of the Bloc. I would suggest that the hon. member is using selective statistics in backing his own arguments. He talks about the 40,000 or 50,000 jobs created in the west through government grants and government funding. How many jobs have we lost in the west because of the government's overspending and the taxation of all the different businesses and individuals which rob us of the ability to do this for ourselves?

The government creates the problem. It gave us a small bit of a solution to that problem. Then it wants to pat itself on the back for it.

There is something wrong with a system in which we give our money to the federal government and then have to beg and plead to get some of it back through whatever program it decides to develop. It is very selective how it is given out.

The hon. minister talked about 150 companies that get the government's benevolent help. What about the companies that are not in that group, further disadvantaged because now we have government interference stepping in and saying: "You are the good companies so we are going to help you; but we are not helping you guys with your taxes because we have to get the money from somewhere to give to these other companies in the first place".

When he said we want to bring together the wealth of Canada, they have sure done that; they have taken all the wealth of Canada and brought it here to Ottawa and then squandered it.

What we have to do is find some solutions to problems. We are getting rhetoric from that side, we are getting rhetoric from every side, and I am probably using a bit of it because I get caught up in the flow.

In terms of regional development, the problem with government today and in the past is that it is selective. It makes these arbitrary choices of who it is going to help and how it is going to help. The Bloc Quebecois is upset about the money it pays out and gets back. The west pays out more than it gets back and we are tired of that as well.

I would suggest to the hon. member that if he is going to use statistics, use accurate ones, use ones that reflect the true picture and not his own stilted sort of version of it.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Axworthy Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, once again we are faced with a kind of cheque book federalism. We have on the one hand members of the Bloc saying: "We do not get enough". The members from the Reform Party are saying: "We give away too much".

What ever happened to the notion that there is a country that tries to share and distribute things? The problem is that we are now seeing certainly on the benches opposite this sort of small end thinking: "What is important is only within my own little circle".

I thought what we are trying to build in the country is some sense of common interest, that we are trying to reach out and build some strengths together. Unfortunately we seem to have

two parties which think that their only responsibility is to represent very narrow, specific regional interests, that there is not such thing called Canada any more. It seems to be forgotten in their vocabulary. That seems to be the problem.

It is a tragedy that we do not in effect have some groups opposite which speak from a national interest point of view, which speak from the perspective of how to help build a community, how to help pull people together as opposed to this notion of how to separate them, divide them and start adding things up by some accounting; we transferred 1.5 here and they got 1.2 there.

That is how you destroy a country. I say in all honesty to the hon. member, that is how you destroy a country.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The time has long ago expired. Is there consent to have further time on the question period?

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Five more minutes.

SupplyGovernment Orders

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Axworthy Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Mr. Speaker, he talked about squandering and waste but the fact of the matter is that all Canadians whether they live in western Canada or Quebec fundamentally share a national support for health programs so that we have the best health care system in the world.

We all basically share and benefit by having a program of employment education which is one of the best in the world. We all share and benefit by having one of the best infrastructures in the world which we are now trying to improve even though the Reform Party opposes it.

Those are things you do not break down by provincial boundaries. You look at them from a national perspective and we are all winners in it.

I would simply say that the next generation of requirements is to do what my colleague, the Minister of Industry, is trying to do, to break those barriers down further. We are trying in western Canada to bring down the barriers among western provinces and get away from building up barriers, building up protectionisms, building up new walls or frontiers that the Bloc Quebecois wants to do and apparently the Reform Party wants to do.