Debates of June 2nd, 1994

Department Of Citizenship And Immigration Act

[Sergio Marchi, Liberal, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-35, an act to establish the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Split Lake Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-36, an act respecting the Split Lake Cree First Nation and the settlement of matters arising from an agreement relating to the flooding of land.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Young Offenders Act

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-37, an act to amend the Young Offenders Act and the Criminal Code.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Interpretation Act

[Chris Axworthy, NDP, Saskatoon—Clark's Crossing, SK]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-254, an act to amend the Interpretation Act (convention on the rights of the child).

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to accompany what is essentially the introduction of a children's bill of rights. This bill would require the Government of Canada to interpret all legislation in harmony with the UN declaration on the rights of the child which Canada was instrumental in engineering and has already signed.

We will remember that the House unanimously voted in 1989 to end child poverty by the year 2000. Since that time child poverty has increased. We will remember the UN declaration on the rights of the child. This bill will ensure that Canada will enforce the concept that Canadian children be free from exploitation and abuse, that government action should be interpreted with regard to children in the best interests of the child, that children should have access to child care, health care and a standard of living that at minimum meets basic needs, and that disabled children should receive the same level of dignity and opportunities as other children.

It is important if we are going to put words into action to ensure that commitments Canada has made on behalf of its children are enforced by the government. At the moment this is sadly not the case. The position of Canadian children is getting worse.

I hope that along with my colleagues from Yukon, from Burnaby-Kingsway, from Kamloops and also from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who all indicated their support for this bill, we will see some action in this regard.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Petitions

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

Mr. Speaker, my constituents have asked me to submit to the House three duly executed and signed petitions.

One calls on Parliament to refrain from making changes to the human rights code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination.

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on Parliament to uphold section 241 of the Criminal Code which makes euthanasia illegal.

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

Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls on Parliament to enact a law which will protect the lives of all innocent human beings from conception until natural death.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I feel it is my duty to present all petitions from my constituents that conform with Standing Order 36. I therefore have two petitions to present.

The first petition makes reference to the human rights code, which Canada does not have, and asks Parliament to maintain the status quo regarding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Human Rights Act so as to not show societal approval for same sex relationships.

A recent court decision forced the government to read sexual orientation into the Canadian Human Rights Act. This misunderstanding in this petition epitomizes the debate. This is not a question of personal values or morals. It is a question of equal rights for all Canadians.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition requests Parliament not to alter the Criminal Code to allow for assisted suicide or euthanasia.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall all questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Supply

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

moved:

That this House condemn the federal government's ineffective regional development interventions, which create overlappings and inconsistencies, resulting in administrative chaos that hampers regional economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, opening this supply day on regional development is for me a very important opportunity. For some Quebecers, their sovereignist commitment comes from the desire to maintain the French fact in Quebec, but personally, my convictions flow mainly from the general uneasiness prevalent in all regions of Quebec, because the inefficiencies of the present system prevent it from responding adequately to regional development needs.

This observation of mine was also made by numerous Quebecers, especially during the hearings of the Bélanger-Campeau Commission. As it travelled the various regions of Quebec, it came to the unanimous conclusion that the regions had to have control over their own development, and in order to do that the existing structures had to be called into question.

Let us review quickly the history of the federal government's involvement in regional development. In the 1960s and 1970s, the federal government realized that its programs were hard to access and it decided to improve the situation. It created the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion which was quickly discredited due to the lack of regional participation in project development and to the dominance of departmental concerns. The Department of Agriculture, the Department of Fisheries and others were still acting in an uncoordinated manner.

This prompted the federal government to try something new: regional development agencies. One was created for Quebec, another one for Atlantic Canada and a third for the West.

Due to these regional agencies, federal government interventions have been rather haphazard. Cases in point are the Federal Office of Regional Development, the Federal Business Development Bank, the interventions of Employment and Immigration through the Community Futures Committees and the Business Development Centres.

All these interventions were made in good faith, but since they were not coordinated, they produced limited economic development and there was absolutely no coordination among stakeholders in various sectors, which led to major errors such as investing in the wrong sectors.

I will give you an example of this. In my riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, they poured money into a new armoury.

I suppose that people in the Reserve are very happy to have an armoury now, but I doubt that it was a priority for my constituents, at a time when we were desperately in need of money to develop Gros-Cacouna harbour.

Departments take initiatives, in their own sector, without any regard for regional priorities.

In the past few months, since the Liberal government came into office, the Federal Office of Regional Development has taken a back seat to the Department of Industry. Before the previous Conservative government, the Department of Industry used to intervene in Quebec. But in view of its lack of efficiency, it was decided to set up regional development agencies, which was equivalent to performing by-pass surgery on a heart patient to make sure that his blood kept on circulating. Now, the Liberal government is limiting the FORD's mandate and cutting its budget in such a way that we are back to a very centralized approach which is totally inadequate to meet regional development needs.

What kind of message is the government sending to the regions when in its budget, it cuts funding to the regional development agencies to the tune of $13 million in the Maritimes, $70 million in Quebec, and $90 million in western Canada over three years? In Quebec alone, this will lead to cuts in FORD regional development assistance, in the amount of $14 million in 1994-95, $32 million in 1995-96, and $24 million in 1996-97. This is a strange way to care for the patient. They have decided to choke him to death, as clearly indicated by these figures. In april 1994 for example, the official unemployment rate was 27 per cent in the region of Gaspé-Îles-de-la-Madeleine; 17 per cent in the Lower St. Lawrence; 15 per cent in Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean; 16 per cent in Laurentides; 12 per cent in Mauricie-Bois-Francs and 15 per cent in Lanaudière.

Those are very clear indications that the government's action has not produced the expected results in spite of all the money they spent on the problem. There is a flaw somewhere that makes it fail. We have to ask why. What are the causes of such a situation?

The first cause I can see is that jurisdiction over regional development is not specified in the Canadian Constitution. Therefore the federal government, because it had spending power, seized the opportunity to increase its visibility and its influence over the electorate; at the same time, the provincial government thought it should act because it had jurisdiction over land use planning and found it important to control, at least partly, regional development. That sterile war, that futile competition, I would even say that unhealthy competition between governments, aside from guaranteeing visibility to politicians, only resulted in choking the regions. Such wars between governments can only produce negative impacts.

I would like to mention another example. In the area of fisheries in Quebec there were jurisdictional wars between governments, wars to determine who would take relevant measures. We can see the results of that today; we ended up with a complete moratorium on groundfish fishing. It is due among other things to the lack of concerted action on the part of governments competing with each other.

The ineffectiveness of the federal government's interventions could be attributed also to the fact that its initiatives are haphazard. Here are a few examples. On the one hand, it creates community futures committees which are locally based and help members of the community help themselves. I think it was a very interesting initiative in itself. But on the other hand, it closes post offices. Canada Post Corporation, also subject to spending cuts, has decided for its part to close a number of post offices in order to increase its productivity. So, it wants to help communities take control of their future but it takes away from them one of the tools they would need to do so. It is an illogical situation which must be denounced.

Another example is the decision to create business development centres. It says to the regions: "We are going to give you borrowing power and allow you to obtain the capital you need in order to use your entrepreneurial spirit", but at the same time, it is systematically dismantling the railway system. You may well ask me what is the relationship between the two.

Even if we give tons of money to the regions, if we do not maintain at least the development infrastructures already in place, we are wasting our time and our money.

The third example I want to give is the Eastern Quebec Development Plan versus the decision to close the CBC stations in the region. The purpose of this plan is to ensure that local communities whose livelihood depends on forest development have a bright future and are able to develop their territory, and to make sure that these communities are viable and enjoy a good quality of life. However, we also deny these communities the right to express themselves, to talk with one another by dismantling their regional communication network. That is another example of conflicting and unseemly action between the different tentacles of the federal octopus, if I may.

Finally, the federal government also acted inefficiently in its parallel interventions with other governments. On the one hand, in Quebec, a provincial structure was quietly setting up regional development councils, which evolved in regional consultation and development councils. These councils developed strategic plans for every region. All concerned parties in the region were consulted.

At the same time, the federal government was creating another structure, the Federal Office of Regional Development. It was an act of good will intended to inject some money into the regions, but it also set up other consultation committees which, for years, operated side by side with the regional development office. Such a structure does not allow for efficient economic management. No coordinated tangible results can be achieved this way since there is no structural relationship between these organizations. Regions want to stop wasting their energy trying to convince governments to act in accordance with their own strategic plans. Up to now the federal government has shown no sign of being aware of the regions' demands and of trying to be flexible enough to meet them.

The Gaspé Peninsula and the Lower St. Lawrence regional consultation and development councils mentioned tourism as one of their top priorities in terms of development. This year, one of the first things the Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development announced in the budget speech was that no more money would be allocated for bicycle paths. Tourism development is, therefore, a priority of the regions and the message they are getting from the party opposite is that the money earmarked for these priorities is being cut. To my mind, this is unacceptable.

Still another reason for the ongoing ineffectiveness of the federal government's action is the paralysis of sectoral departments. Let me give you an example. A number of years ago, a wharf was built in Trois-Pistoles to provide adequate facilities for fishermen. Over the years, the reason for the wharf's existence has changed. Today, the region feels that this wharf could play an important role in terms of tourism and regional development. It is an important link for the ferry between Trois-Pistoles and Les Escoumins and it needs to be upgraded. Wharf maintenance comes under federal jurisdiction, but we get the feeling that the more the federal government spends money on areas which are not necessarily its responsibility, the more it neglects to spend in areas for which it does have primary responsibility. In this instance, it has refused to spend money to renovate wharves. It seems to have forgotten about the river for the past 25 or 30 years.

When a member tries to navigate through this maze, he finds that he must go knocking on the doors of such departments as Fisheries and Oceans and Transport. However, development priorities of the officials working in these departments are tied to the department's mandate whereas the future of the wharf should not be tied to regional development objectives, but rather to tourism. Existing structures are not flexible enough to respond to changing times and to allow the local community to take charge of its destiny and make the necessary adjustments. Federal sectoral departments are too cumbersome and prevent individual regions from having their needs met.

This is a rather odd message to be sending out to the regions that want to take their future into their own hands and to municipalities like Trois-Pistoles which has expressed an interest in purchasing the wharf, provided it can be properly renovated. They are at a loss as to where to find someone whose primary concern is regional development, not simply the fulfilment of a sectoral mandate. Another example of the federal government's failure to focus on its traditional areas of jurisdiction is the lack of vision of pan-Canadian corporations in so far as the role of regional development is concerned.

Consider, for example, VIA Rail and the Canada Post Corporation. For a number of years now, VIA's policy has been to abandon rail lines and eliminate passenger rail services in order to save money. Local communities have been telling VIA Rail that the train is not only a means of transportation for local commuters, but it can also serve a wide range of purposes.

This fact was demonstrated most strikingly during the recent public hearings held by Rural Dignity in the Gaspesian Peninsula, when over 50 participants demonstrated that the train serving their region plays a major role in the tourist industry. An article was even written and published in 60 American papers, saying that this train really had special value; it could easily be made profitable, if marketed properly.

It is not within VIA Rail's mandate to promote regional development in Quebec and Canada. It was established by Cabinet to meet the demands of Cabinet. It would seem however that Cabinet never gave VIA any responsibilities with respect to regional development, judging from all the drastic cuts that were made. The Liberal caucus denounced these cuts in 1989 in a quality report listing all that should be done, but now that the Liberal Party is in power, it has laid this report aside. All we have to do, really, is dig this report up, update it a little and tell the people from the Liberal Party: "Now, carry out what you had committed to do in this report".

Let me give you another example of a Crown corporation with no regional responsibilities: Canada Post. The Canada Post Corporation was so successful in fulfilling its expenditure reduction mandate, it has stretched the elastic so much that it eventually snapped. This government did fulfil one commitment: it has put a moratorium on post office closures. But Canada Post itself, within its organization under its board of directors, has no regional development responsibilities. Its only responsibility is to make postal services profitable, and in so doing it may not take the wishes of the regions into consideration. This is obvious in its day-to-day operations, in every community.

I think that the federal government should ensure regional representation on the board of Canada Post and consideration of the economic, social and cultural impact in its decision making. I do not think that it is a problem of personalities or people at any level, be they federal or provincial officials or politicians--

and the people of eastern Quebec sent a very clear message on that. In last fall's election, the Liberal Party had a good candidate in Matane, who according to the old tradition said: "If I am elected, I want to be a minister in that government and that will give the region all it needs for its development". The people flatly turned down that approach which has been used for 25 years.

Saviours from outside and heroes who will make development happen are no longer the way to go. We have strategic planning and ways to take charge in our regions and I think that the message rural Quebec gave the federal government is this: "We do not want any more fleeting, flash-in-the-pan heroes. We want people who will work steadily and make structural changes so that the regions can develop".

Given the awful unemployment, exodus of young people, aging population and abandoned land, I think that the solutions must be drastic and sweeping. Whether in a federal system or a sovereign Quebec, it will be important in the short term to recognize the driving role of the regions. The organizations which arose from people's desire to take control of their own lives, like Rural Solidarity, Rural Emergency Coalition, Rural Dignity and the Ralliement of Gaspesians and Magdalen Islanders, want to ensure that their communities will live, and I think that what governments do should reflect that.

To do so, we must give the envelopes back to the regions. Regions must have full control over their envelopes. I will give you an example: the $200 million budget of the Federal Office of Regional Development could be decentralized by region so that, in terms of strategic planning for every region of Quebec, the $200 million allocated for all of Quebec could be replaced with regional envelopes; every region would then get an extra $10 million or so to spend on its own development.

Sectorial departments should also subordinate their action to regional priorities. We must ask the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Transport whether their operations have a positive impact on regional development. Will the new, clarified air transport taxes hinder or promote regional development? We must take such actions. We must also assign a regional development mandate to Canadian corporations such as VIA Rail and Canada Post, just like the examples I gave earlier.

I myself think that the position taken by many Quebecers-and it is partly at the heart of our mandate-is that what has been done in the last 20 years have convinced Quebecers that our economic problems can be solved through sovereignty and decentralization. It is important that we have control over our own development and that the $28 billion in taxes that we pay to the federal government can be transferred to the regions so that these taxes can have a major economic impact and give the regions control over their own development.

If you are wondering why the Bloc Quebecois candidates were elected, here is an explanation: to denounce a system that does not work, to effect deep changes and to respond to the Prime Minister when he says that, to solve economic problems, he does not want to talk about sovereignty. In fact, our economic problems can be solved through a complete redistribution of powers, through decentralization. Our problem is one of architecture, of plumbing even, and that is why regional development is a major reason to achieve Quebec sovereignty.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I do not in any way, shape or form agree with the member's comments here today.

I was elected to the Parliament of Canada in 1988 because I opposed the Meech Lake accord. I opposed it for three or four specific reasons, one of which was that I believe the only way to look after the disadvantaged regions is by having a strong national government.

I believe that the argument the members of the Bloc are putting forward here today reinforces the position I took in 1988. What they have been saying through their remarks today is: "Decentralize, decentralize. Give us all the money to look after the regional development problems. Then we will just separate and go our own way". What kind of logic is that?

If you are interested in city politics you run municipally. If you are interested in provincial politics you run provincially. However, when you are elected to the Parliament of Canada you come here to build and promote economic strength in the country.

Why would we support a motion in this House today which promotes dismembering the country?

The member mentioned in his speech the importance of tourism. I support the fact that we must be much more aggressive in marketing tourism in this country. I believe most members would support that. One of the difficulties is that we are saddled with a very difficult fiscal framework. We are saddled with instability. Our economic numbers are not as great as they should be because the Bloc is sending out negative signals which are hurting the very objectives it is trying to achieve.

The hon. member's premise has no logic. History will show that the best economies that we have had in the history of the country, and the best economy ever in Quebec was when we had a strong national government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find those words extremely indicative of the current unease in Canada, very indicative indeed.

The Liberal Party says that a strong central government will solve the problem. It would have us believe that good ideas only come from Ottawa and, if Liberals decide everything, Canada will withstand any crisis.

But, this argument does not wash. Given the current situation, the 30 per cent unemployment and the 50-per-cent jobless rate in the Gaspe Peninsula, can we truly say that the system is working?

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just heard the hon. member comment that it is our fault. But, for the past ten years, who has been governing in Quebec and in Ottawa: the federalists or the sovereigntists?

[Some hon. members]

The federalists.

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

Whether in a federal or a sovereign environment, if the federal government maintains its current centralizing position, each time such a comment is made, each time such a measure is taken, more arguments in favour of sovereignty are being given to Quebecers.

After hearing such words, any federalist who is disappointed with Quebec's position joins our ranks.

[Jim Gouk, Reform, Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it a kind of a paradox listening to this this morning. Recently a member of the Bloc Quebecois came to my riding in British Columbia. While he was there I had a chance to hear a lot of their policies. I thought it was really interesting because a lot of their ideas are not that different from mine.

In fact in identifying the problem and identifying the cause of the problem federally we were very much in agreement. Where we came to a difference was in the solution. It sounds like we are in much the same situation here this morning.

We believe that regional development grants are not working well, that it is not a good way to redistribute the wealth of the country. The Bloc have talked about the failure of a system. We agree with that too but where we come to a difference again is in the solution.

Because regional development grants do not work the Bloc feels that this is a reason to separate. We suggest this is a reason to come to Ottawa and change the system and that is our purpose in being here.

Interprovincial trade barriers are also something that cost the individual provinces a tremendous amount of money and that is in the provincial hands. The amounts of the grants that go to the Atlantic region were mentioned. Interprovincial trade barriers cost the Atlantic region more than the total value of their regional development grants. So there are solutions in the hands of the Quebec government at this time.

They talked of the VIA Rail system and how there has to be more subsidies or the continuation of subsidies in order to enhance tourism and passenger travel. In British Columbia VIA Rail tried to operate a system that was largely tourist oriented. Even though it was hugely subsidized it lost its shirt. Private enterprise stepped in and without any subsidies whatsoever is now turning a nice profit and causing a tremendous boon for the various regions of British Columbia that it travels in without, as I said, any subsidy whatsoever.

There are any number of things that we can talk about such as the post office. I suggest to the Bloc that a solution to part of the problems in terms of keeping some of the money at home would be to deal with some of the internal problems of Quebec.

With regard to the regional development grants, we support the idea that we need a lot of these things that become in part patronage. Regional development grants do on occasion work. I am not suggesting that every time they are used they are a total failure.

However, the federal government has to stop wasting so much money. The only way it will get its deficit under control is if it spends less, pure and simple. This is an area where it can cut the spending. It could then stop taking that money from the individual provinces and they would be more viable.

I would ask the Bloc if it has a solution that does not involve separation. We certainly do. We think that is the direction it should be going in. Give us a solution not an enhancement.

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

Mr. Speaker, I get of lot of sympathy from this comment and I want to tell the hon. member that we have been trying to change the system for 125 years, and particularly in the last 35 years.

First, we once gave 74 out of 75 seats to the Liberals, with Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau at the helm, and even with that representation, Quebec was not able to get what it needed.

Then, we relied on the Conservatives to regain, with dignity, our place within the Confederation, and that was also denied to us. We are now at the point where Quebecers feel that a structural change is needed. We are told that cuts, among other measures, are required to make real savings.

Take manpower training, a field in which Quebec and Canada together waste $250 million every year. If this $250 million was

available for development, there is a good chance we would not have to rely on government initiatives: We would be able to promote our own development in other ways.

The hon. member asks if there are other solutions, but sovereignty means that you pass your own legislation, levy your own taxes and conclude all your own treaties concerning Quebec's future. If federal legislation and taxes had ensured that Quebec got what it needed for its development, and if the federal government had been successful in getting what we wanted when it signed international treaties, we would stay.

However, the current structure has not given any such results, and it is particularly noticeable in the case of regional development. I might add that where I come from we have made a habit-and this may be another difference-of letting people who have the right to speak to do just that. It is much more practical to do so.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The period for questions and comments has now expired. Is there unanimous consent to continue for five more minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I therefore give the floor to the hon. member for Kamouraska-I mean Madawaska-Victoria.