Debates of Sept. 26th, 1994

Department Of Industry Act

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

I listened carefully to the member for Simcoe Centre. I appreciate the member has recognized this bill as a step in the right direction. He has also recognized the work which had to be done to date on interprovincial trade barriers as being a step in the right direction. What puzzles me about the hon. member's remarks is his failure to recognize the very special emphasis the government has given to small business and the tourism sector.

The member comes from one of the most beautiful communities in all of Canada. I know that riding depends heavily on a tourism thrust and attention to that sector. Is the member suggesting that area as one where we would further diminish our participation, or would he suggest that we reinvigorate that sector? I am trying to understand what the member is saying in the sense that we have gone in the right direction but not far enough. I happen to believe that we should reinvigorate an area like tourism because that is a way we can get people back to work right away.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Broadview-Greenwood for his question. I applaud some of the steps taken by the government because they were steps in the right direction, but I make the point that they are small steps and the time is long past for small steps.

This country is in serious difficulty today and it calls for big steps. It calls for action against the deficit and the debt. You cannot jump a huge crevasse in small steps; it takes one giant leap. That is what is lacking in what is coming forward from the other side.

Small business is not looking for government intervention. The best thing government can do for small business is to get out of their way. Get off their backs as they said and out of their pockets and the pockets of their customers. Then there will be more disposable income which will generate the business which will create the jobs, but that is not happening.

Small businessmen are being taxed to death. They are asking what is being done to get this tax load under control. The only way to do that is to get government spending under control. I was looking for some spending cuts in this bill but they are not there.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Tourism?

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Tourism is very important in my area. Anything that can be done in tourism is certainly going to be appreciated in Simcoe Centre. However the importance of doing something about reducing government spending and getting it under control is paramount to tourism, small business, large business. It is not being addressed in this bill, nor is it being addressed in many of the things the government is doing at this point.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I understood the hon. member correctly when he indicated if he had undertaken this legislation it would have ended up much smaller, much leaner and much less costly than it is. He gave as examples Investment Canada and the defence industry productivity program which he thought should have been looked at.

Is the member saying that Investment Canada and the defence industry productivity program would have been cut out along with the other examples he gave, or would he simply look at them? That is my first question.

Second, because he did state initially that it would have been much neater, much smaller, much less costly, could he give specifics? How much leaner? How much smaller? How much less costly? Could we have specifics please?

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, obviously government members do not have the answers and are coming to Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition for them.

If I were running a corporation of 6,000 employees with a budget of $3 billion and my back was to the wall and I had to effect some cost savings-and I suggest our backs are to the wall right now-230 employees out of 6,000 is a drop in the bucket. That is not really an attack, if it was intended to be an attack, at getting the spending and efficiencies under control. I would cut jobs. We would have to cut back.

[An hon. member]

What sector, small business, tourism?

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

No. It is called efficiency of operation. If that was the purpose of the exercise then it was not achieved. It is a long way from being achieved. The dollars and the jobs that are being saved will have no real impact on doing something about the deficit and the debt that everyone says they are concerned about but they do nothing about.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Bill C-46, the Department of Industry Act.

Bill C-46 creates a remarkable organization with wide ranging responsibilities and a far reaching mandate. There are many tasks in the government's agenda for growth and job creation that it will perform. Not the least of these is the slate of initiatives the Prime Minister announced to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in Quebec City on September 18, namely: to improve the climate for entrepreneurship; to help business profit from new technologies; to seek expanding markets; and to promote the tourism industry that is so important in Halifax West and throughout the maritimes.

The successful pursuit of that agenda requires a concerted effort of all major players in the economic development game. The Department of Industry created by this bill is well designed to rally that kind of effort. Incorporating within one organization the very functions of industry, technology, science, communications, foreign investment, and consumer and corporate affairs permits a powerful focus of related interests in the formulation and implementation of our economic development strategies. Some may fear that this new department will not do as much in individual areas like communications, corporate affairs or consumer affairs as under the old setup. An impression of that sort is just that first and last, a mere impression.

While titles are important symbolically, they must not be mistaken for substance. Bill C-46 could not possibly include the names of all the functions in its title. In substance we do have a department of industry, science, technology, communications, investment, and consumer and corporate affairs. To include all of its concerns we would have to add small and medium sized enterprises, tourism, sustainable development and many other areas. These are all key functions in the pursuit of an innovative economy and in the pursuit of growth and job creation.

However the essence of the this new department is not found in the title. We have a Department of Industry. What does that name symbolize? Industry is not merely heavy industry nor manufacturing. Industry is whatever provides wealth and well-being in our society. Teachers, accountants and fishers are as much an essential part of industry in this country as employers, for example Litton, Pratt and Whitney, Farmers Co-operative Dairy and Dynatek in my riding.

We have to consider the interests of consumers as well. We want to give Canadian consumers the assurance that although the word "consumer" does not appear in the department's new title, their interests are still central to the concerns of the Department of Industry.

Many of us will recall when the federal government in the seventies decided to create the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Many will recall there was much concern that putting the affairs of consumers under the same roof as corporations was a bit like putting the chickens in with the foxes. Those fears proved groundless, as we well know.

In retrospect it was wise to incorporate the concern for consumer interests into policies and decisions affecting corporations. It is now recognized by governments and corporations more and more that attention to consumer interests must underpin sound corporate strategies. Increased consumer awareness, increasing competition and the relentless demand for ever higher quality of goods and services are leading businesses in the direction of more attention to consumer needs and consumer service.

This bill on the Department of Industry is built on that principle of common interest. The bill extends the same logic to the consideration of all economic development strategies.

By making the Department of Industry responsible for consumer policy, the government guarantees that the voice of consumers will be heard and considered when policies affecting the Canadian market are discussed in cabinet.

The Minister of Industry has a clear mandate to act as the advocate for consumer issues at the cabinet table. To do that effectively he has to seek input of consumers and advocacy groups across the country on all issues affecting growth. The Consumers Association of Canada for example plays a strong leadership role in consumer education and in raising concerns about products.

With advancing technology, consumer issues are becoming ever more complex. Issues like the access and cost for consumers to the information highway, the protection of privacy, electronic funds transfer, and biotechnology and genetic engineering are all new complex issues that require close examination from the point of view of consumer interest.

In the light of these complex issues an integrated process is needed to ensure that consumer concerns are incorporated as early as possible in policy development. In this way consumer protection efforts can focus on preventing problems before they happen instead of exposing them after the fact.

The government's priority is growth and job creation, but these goals must depend on efficiently functioning markets. Our consumers share with the business world a common interest in achieving that kind of efficiency. Both should welcome initiatives that help our businesses to be more efficient, effective and competitive.

The recently announced internal trade agreement which will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of trade in goods and services and the movement of people among provinces and territories will save businesses and governments millions of dollars. It is good for consumers.

All of us who take part in the economy have an interest in the actions of government directed toward consumer protection and promotion of competition. These actions not only right wrongs, they also enhance our overall economic performance.

We should all be glad the twin pillars of consumer and corporate affairs are under the same roof at Industry Canada. This bill in my view is well designed to help guide the efforts of Team Canada. I recommend its speedy approval.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I again commend the member for Halifax West for his comments.

I recognize the hon. member for Halifax West did not make these comments, but being from the same party as the member who did earlier that member had difficulty finding the appropriate role of government in business. He did not like too little and of course did not like too much. What would the hon. member say is the appropriate role for government in the business affairs of the nation?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real challenge, as the hon. member knows, to define exactly in a few words or a few moments what the role of government is in our economy because it is a complex question. Certainly my view would probably be for a little bit more involvement than his view. My view would be that government has a very important role in terms of consumer protection. I do not know if he would put the same emphasis or as much effort in that regard as I would, but that is for him to answer I suppose. However, it seems to me that is an important consideration.

In Atlantic Canada there is a need for government involvement. There is a need for investment capital. There is a great problem in Atlantic Canada with the lack of that kind of capital. Many business people come to me with the problem of getting capital to expand their businesses. Those businesses are doing well but they cannot quite get to the next level and cannot find the capital in Atlantic Canada to expand.

That is why agencies like ACOA which provides about 40 per cent of the business financing in Atlantic Canada are so important. In fact overall it has been very successful. We do hear about the failures which are sensationalized by the media, but the large majority of its programs and efforts in creating jobs and assisting businesses to expand and create more jobs have been very successful.

I gather sometimes there is the impression in the rest of Canada that all we do in Atlantic Canada is fish or collect unemployment and that is a great myth. It certainly is untrue in my riding where there are many businesses and people are hard at work doing a variety of things. Things are being done for example in high technology at Dynatek which produces computer memory systems. Pratt and Whitney produces some of the best aircraft jet engines in the world. There are Litton Systems and Farmers Co-operative Dairy and many others. People are working hard.

I agree that government cannot be the one to create the jobs. It is absolutely true that we have to rely on the private sector to do the main job creation. I also agree we have to make efforts and we have to reduce our debts so we can get off their backs, but we cannot do it overnight.

At the same time there is still a role for government to assist those companies in areas like R and D and international information. We receive information from our embassies about what is happening overseas, what opportunities are available for our companies elsewhere. There are many roles government can play.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member a question concerning the role of government. He mentioned Pratt and Whitney in his constituency. Pratt and Whitney is also in my constituency. It received a loan guarantee of $50 million to come into the city of Lethbridge.

Would the member and the government support that kind of a government policy in terms of loan guarantees to encourage industries to locate in a variety of areas in Canada?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that I certainly prefer it to grants. I am concerned about that size of a guarantee. I think we should see companies locating where they think is best.

Companies are coming to Nova Scotia. People like the quality of life we provide. They do not like having to sit in traffic for four hours on the 401 into Toronto, or what have you. Companies are coming for reasons other than government assistance. In fact we are seeing that governments at all levels are finding it harder to provide that kind of incentive.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-46. I commend the member for Broadview-Greenwood for sitting here all day and listening to some of the great doomsday scenarios that have fallen on him from the opposition and also some of the points

which have been made from this side of the House and from Liberal members on the other side of the House.

Bill C-46 is one I have looked forward to debating. Anything that will streamline the operation of a government department and make it more clear to carry out its mandate is welcomed.

In particular I look at the improved business climate for entrepreneurs and the promotion of the tourism industry. The member for Broadview-Greenwood and I among other members have sat and talked in many long meetings about how to reinvent tourism in Canada. In the last 10 years the previous government almost eliminated tourism totally.

As a private individual I watched the bottom fall out of the real estate industry in Ontario, where a person's cottage all of a sudden was not worth anything or there was no market for it. I saw that and hoped that somewhere, some way this government I was elected to would take some initiative and try to re-establish some of the important sectors of our society. That is done with bills such as Bill C-46 which include provisions of the old act and yet become something new.

In the last 10 years there has certainly been a great decline in the initiative of entrepreneurs and people who are willing to come forward to finance small business, of which I was a part. I look at anything that will make that a clearer mandate or an easier path to follow, anything that will establish rules and say that yes, we do want to take a positive step in streamlining legislation. I speak to it for that reason and I look forward to the passage of the bill.

Victoria-Haliburton region has lost a tremendous number of jobs. Victoria-Haliburton is in Ontario; it is not in Victoria and it is not on the east coast. I do not speak as a person who has had the advantage of the financing of the east coast entrepreneurs. Ontario, particularly the central part where I am from, relies more on people in private industry to provide initiative.

In the last two years, for example, there has been almost 30 per cent constant unemployment in Haliburton county. The county is almost devastated. It swells the rolls of the number of people needed to administer the social assistance plan. It does not help anyone's self worth. It does not help anyone try to do anything.

I look at the tremendous loss since 1988 in Victoria county, the 2,400 jobs that were taken from there and I remember reading some of the articles by the member for Broadview-Greenwood at that time. He wrote about the things that could happen. He thought the branch plant economy was going to disappear, and it happened. Jobs were lost. This government has to take the initiative, has to go ahead and make the changes we need and that we believe will turn around that loss of jobs.

It will come through tourism in my riding. I hope it will come through other things and I will certainly work as hard as I can to bring industry and commerce to the most beautiful part of Ontario. I do not mean to speak disparagingly about any other part of Ontario; it just so happens that I do live in an area where the Kawartha Lakes depend on the rejuvenation of the tourism industry.

People ask how you service a riding of 10,460 square kilometres, 35 municipalities which take in a lot of Peterborough county and a lot of areas which should be in other ridings. Redistribution has given me areas of Brock township where I deal with boaters on Lake Simcoe, all the way through the Trent canal system right to the side of the city of Peterborough where that riding is looked after by another Liberal member. If you are in Ontario and you guess that anyone is a Liberal you are probably right 99 per cent of the time.

When we deal with the Haliburton County Lakes, the Kawartha Lakes and the Trent-Severn waterway, the Rideau system that connects to it, look at how that has been decimated. The Trent-Severn waterway and the Rideau waterway were even offered to the provincial governments to see if they would promote them and they turned it down. At one time the Government of Ontario did a large job in promoting tourism in Ontario and now its budget has gone the other way and it sees no benefits to tourism. It indicated that tourism is not something it wants to get involved in.

The federal government has to step in and provide some leadership in promoting tourism, not only in Ontario but in all of Canada as Canada is obviously the best country in the world to live in. It has been written. People all over the world have commented that they would love to live in Canada, as we can tell by the number of people who apply.

As I watch the vestiges of the last government being taken apart by this government in a slow orderly fashion to try to promote and better the lifestyle of people in Canada through the promotion of streamlining of government and changing the system, it is hard for me to listen to the opposition. I know it is paid well to oppose and I know its opposition sometimes is well-meaning and I know also that some of its members probably have some good ideas and I am very anxious to hear what they are.

None of them has come forward yet with the changes to any of this legislation that has been proposed. I was looking forward to seeing if there was some concrete results that would come out of the opposition's chance to change and refine and turn this

legislation into something it feels is better than what is being offered.

I feel what is being offered is once again a step in the right direction and will cause the rejuvenation of the department and in particular the slow and steady step of a government that is in control, that is going to turn the economy around. It is not going to do it by trying to jump over some huge gorge that has been mentioned. It is going to do it one step at a time, in an orderly fashion, looking at the various things affected by government change, taking into account all the municipalities that are involved, all of the various agencies affected by it and hopefully come out with a clear mandate for making this country the place we all want it to be, a better place to live.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Hamilton—Wentworth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent remarks and I would like to add a little to them and perhaps get a comment from him.

I wonder if he would agree that the incentives for tourism are something that apply to this country nationally and are as relevant and advantageous not only to the country at large but to the country in its parts, to the west, represented by the Reform Party opposite and also to Quebec, represented by the Bloc Quebecois.

Does my colleague not agree that this kind of incentive for national tourism is something that is very good for Canada and for national unity?

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Victoria—Haliburton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I find it hard to change from my thinking. Quebec is a province in my country and when I go to Quebec I try to speak French. I try to converse with the people there and I certainly hope that their culture will be maintained.

I see nothing wrong with that. That is commendable. I am of Irish Canadian heritage but I have to tell members that my mother was born in Birmingham, England. I also have an affection for the English. I have to be very careful with that, too.

I have travelled across Canada many times. I have been on the east coast and I have been on the west coast. There are some beautiful mountain ranges on the west coast, the fishing industry. Who could find anything more beautiful than Long Beach on the island, the beautiful Tofino and some of the places over there? The member obviously is from there and knows what I am talking about. I keep getting accused of being from Victoria.

As a government we have to promote all of Canada, Canada as a whole, as the best country in the world. When one goes into Quebec, one has to enjoy the cultural heritage and the beauty of Quebec as I do. There are no nicer regions to be in. There is skiing at beautiful Mont Ste. Anne, not to put down any other areas of Quebec.

One can go up the autoroute above Montreal and find some beautiful country. Even La Prairie as my friend has pointed out is also a beautiful area of the country.

When one promotes the prairies and shows tourists what is in the prairies, what is in the Northwest Territories, when one offers train packages from sea to sea to sea, when one takes this country as a whole and tries to sell it, being a salesman would be the easiest job in the world.

It is such an area, such a culture, such a diversity that I could expand upon that part and talk about our great country. I consider Quebec part of my country. I consider New Brunswick as part of my country along with Manitoba and the Northwest Territories. All that beautiful country is what makes Canada such a great place.

I am very proud to stand up and say that I am a Canadian. I am from Ontario but you cannot be perfect. It is as close as you can get.

As the Speaker has indicated, my time is almost up. I have complimented everyone in the House and that is what I meant to do. I want to fight for a promotion of tourism in Canada as a whole and each individual component has its own strength that draws from the promotion of Canada as a country.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate as the member for Richmond-Wolfe and official critic for regional development. As such, it is my privilege to second the motion by my colleague from Trois-Rivières that we refrain from supporting second reading of the bill because it does not stop program duplication and overlap and fails to recognize that Quebec alone is responsible for its regional development.

Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry, does, I must admit, reflect some desire on the part of the government to rationalize its operations. It is also interesting to see that the Department of Industry is given a legislative mandate and that the legislation defining the former Department of Industry, Science and Technology and Investment Canada has been amalgamated with the legislation to establish the Department of Industry.

However, I was astonished to see that in Part II of the bill, the minister's powers also extend to regional development in Ontario and Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois is strenuously opposed to this centralizing action by the federal government. We emphatically disagree with the new powers and responsibility of the Department of Industry to formulate and implement policies,

plans and integrated federal approaches with respect to regional development in Quebec, as indicated in section 9 (a) .

We also decry the powers enabling the minister to lead and co-ordinate the activities of the Government of Canada in the establishment of co-operative relationships with Ontario and Quebec and with business, labour and other public and private bodies as stipulated under clause 9(1)(c). By passing and implementing this bill respecting the Department of Industry, the Liberal government is flying in the face of Quebec's fundamental claim to manage its own development.

I would remind the members of this House that regional economic development is a residual jurisdiction and therefore not enshrined in the Constitution. Because of its power respecting economic planning, Quebec is demanding exclusive authority in this area. Ever since the Quiet Revolution, we deem the federal government's infringement in this jurisdiction that is exclusive to Quebec to be totally unacceptable and inadmissible.

The Liberal government must withdraw from this sphere of action and transfer to Quebec regional development funding in a fair and equitable manner. The sterile competition between Quebec and Ottawa regarding regional development and the policies of the Federal Office of Regional Development are costly, as you know, and result in overlapping due to the duplication of decision-making centres.

This maze of jurisdictions consumes so much energy that none is left to deal with the real problems. In the meantime, the money does not go where it should. There is an obvious contradiction in the claim by the Liberal government to the effect that it wants to eliminate overlapping while it makes sure with this bill that overlapping will continue to exist.

Regional economic development is an area which the federal government has taken over through its spending power, without taking into account Quebec's desire to take full responsibility for it. To conclude, I will say that I support and second the motion by my colleague from Trois-Rivières denouncing federal involvement in Quebec's regional development.

I would like to take advantage of the few minutes allotted to me in this debate to raise two basic points which are particularly relevant to the dynamics of regional development in Quebec. Let us first review briefly the federal involvement in regional development in that province. I will then deal in greater detail with the Quebec regional development policies which are clearly superior to any other policy developed elsewhere in Canada in that respect, this being said without false modesty.

As the Bloc Quebecois critic for regional development, I ask this House the following question: what has the federal government accomplished in this respect? Between 1982 and 1987, DRIE, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, the federal agency responsible for regional development in Quebec adopted a sterile centralizing policy.

The regions were simply excluded from the financial assistance application development and evaluation process. Often, useless programs were subsidized, while initiatives having meaningful local value were not. The DREI decision-making process was dominated by sectorial concerns, with the result that more funds and energy were devoted to industrial development in central regions than to regional development.

When this became obvious, the federal government claims it reoriented its policy through a new strategy based on master agreements. This course of action proved no better than the previous one. Our unemployment rates bear witness to that. According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, in 1993, unemployment cost the Canadian economy over $109 billion. That is what the federal government involvement in the area of regional development has accomplished.

Let us take a look at what the master agreements do. Instead of giving the regional development resource envelopes directly to Quebec, allowing for income tax points to be repatriated, the federal government withdraws and cuts back budgets to such an extent that a structural vacuum is created with respect to regional development in Quebec. The Economic and Regional Development Agreement, or ERDA, for the 1994-2004 decade proves the point. It has not yet been signed and will apparently never be.

Last summer, the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec refused to sign the agreement, arguing that the time was not right in view of the upcoming elections in Quebec and considering it had signed an agreement respecting the free movement of goods between provinces the same week. Too much work for the same people in one week. That is how serious FORD is in Quebec; it only brings confusion to Quebec regional development.

The FORD structure has been impossible to define ever since it was founded. It is always being reorganized. In short, it is like Jell-O. Now that the ERDA is no longer in effect, we are facing a structural vacuum. It would be very effective and much more serious for the Liberal government to recognize Quebec's jurisdiction over regional development. Accordingly, the government should transfer all monies set aside for this purpose.

It would be in the federal government's interest to admit that its involvement in regional development is unacceptable. The economic foundation of outlying regions-and they are different from major centres-is decaying, the social fabric is disintegrating, the rural exodus is continuing and young people are the first to leave their regions. The number of demographically shrinking municipalities has risen alarmingly in the last 25

years so that it is now higher than the number of growing communities.

The federal government's current involvement in regional development is therefore most unfair, as the figures from the FORDQ itself tell us. Atlantic provinces receive $920 in spending per resident, Western Canada, $240 and Quebec, $230. As far as umbrella agreements such as ERDA are concerned, the federal government's record of involvement in Quebec is disastrous. In 1987, the total was $431 per capita in the Maritimes, $259 in Western Canada and $64 in Quebec.

I should also point out that in the remaining subsidiary agreements with good results, the federal government backed out of $75 million worth of financial commitments. I refer specifically to the withdrawal of funds for the Eastern Plan, which affects over 5,800 timber owners. However, since the federal government intervened in an area of provincial jurisdiction, we demand that the funds be repatriated in the form of tax points to be managed by Quebec.

Let us look at reality: cuts worth $70 million are called for in the finance minister's February 1994 budget. Quebec regional development cutbacks will be spread over the next three years: $14 million in 1994-95, $32 million in 1995-96, and $24 million in 1996-97. A FORD internal document issued at the same time as the budget states that the objective pursued is to cut financial commitments by half. Since the 1993-94 fiscal year, the financial commitment has averaged some $20 million a month. The same document says that as of March 1, 1994, FORD's funding level should be reduced to $10 million a year.

The federal government is leaving the field of economic development in Quebec and I want to mention the cuts in transfers to companies. In 1994, Quebec will lose $70 million in funding; this situation is intolerable. We demand that funding be transferred to Quebec and that Quebec alone manage its development and its regional development organizations.

From another perspective, we can say that the federal government's involvement in development is just a way to show its presence. It is a way of showing the Canadian flag with everything it is doing in all sectors of the economy and in all the present constitutional fields. With its involvement, the federal government increases its visibility but its action remains ineffective.

FORD's action is not based on a comprehensive vision of local development. It more often takes a scattergun approach. From reading some FORD documents, we get the feeling that it is a federal propaganda agency in Quebec. Thus, in a document published in January on a new approach for programs concerning small and medium-sized businesses in Quebec, we read that FORD is well placed to represent the federal government to small and medium-sized businesses and, a little further, that these specific agreements are intended to establish a properly co-ordinated federal presence.

So, the Federal Office for Regional Development becomes the co-ordinator of the federal activity in an area of provincial jurisdiction. This duplication is interesting in that it says much about the centralizing objectives of the federal government. From now on, it is clear that, under the cover of FORD, every federal department wants to extend the scope of its activities in Quebec.

This is why Part II of Bill C-46 includes a set of specific objectives regarding FORD and regional development in Quebec. This is a case of shameless interference in a Quebec constitutional jurisdiction. The new mandate of FORD is clear: that office gives up any type of core agreement to concentrate instead on specific agreements. While freeing itself of financial commitments, FORD takes on the responsibility of an information broker for small and medium businesses, thus limiting its activities to searching for new markets, promoting research and development as well as export markets for regional businesses, thereby duplicating the role of already existing organizations.

FORD is fulfilling the responsibilities of already existing organizations such as industrial commissioner offices and development corporations in several regions. This duplication is confirmed by an act. Why yet another duplication of institutions and structures? Why this waste of energy and human resources? The federal system is the initiator of a series of disastrous money-wasting schemes which are largely responsible for this country's excessive debt.

In Quebec, the future of regional development is dependent on respecting Quebec's jurisdiction in that all-important sector. In our province, the future is contingent upon a decentralization of power. Does the word decentralization suggest anything to you? I am referring to a decentralization in favour of regional decision-making levels which are well aware of their situation, including regional county municipalities, which form the first level of government. The Quebec government recognized the primary decision-making role to be given to regional development councils to ensure that regions would have control over decisions which directly affect the socio-economic life of their communities.

The federal government should pledge to withdraw from that sector and not interfere with the priorities of the strategic planning done by every regional county municipality and every region in Quebec. The creation of regional county municipalities by the Parti Quebecois in 1980 was one of the first elements of the current regional development structure in Quebec. The first socio-economic summits of 1985, as well as the reform undertaken by Liberal minister Yvon Picotte, are other important elements of this very particular structure which led Quebec to the creation of regional development councils. These councils have the mandate of planning, co-ordinating and programming

the development and to ensure joint accountability with local authorities and the provincial government.

In short, these councils are regional consultative and decision-making assemblies. Because of its dynamic role, regional economic development in Quebec is at the centre of the issue of global development in that province. In 1988, the Government of Quebec developed and published its own regional development policy that, even before the Federal Office of Regional Development existed, concentrated on the development of regional enterprises. Its goal, to stimulate entrepreneurship and create jobs in the regions, was a distinct departure from the traditional approach that emphasized the construction of public utilities and infrastructures. There is nothing particularly new or innovative about the new focus of the Federal Office of Regional Development.

Once again, the federal government is merely setting up the same kind of regional development infrastructures that already exist in Quebec, and it has clearly confirmed it has no intention and no desire to remove overlap and respect Quebec's wishes.

In a world where free trade has lowered trade barriers and exposed regional economies to fiercer competition, the new government in Quebec wants to promote local responsibility for regional development. The policy of the Parti Quebecois now in power is clear and unambiguous. It provides for a new sharing of responsibilities by the Government of Quebec with regional governments represented by the l'Union des municipalités du Québec and l'Union des municipalités régionales de comté du Québec among others.

From now on, regional development in Quebec is to be focused on the authority of the regions, a far cry from the endless hesitation of a federal government that does not know where it is going. The Parizeau government has made regional decentralization a priority, and the federal government should be aware of that.

The policy of the new government in Quebec is clear: decentralization will be the responsibility of authorities who are accountable and must include autonomous resources and fiscal powers. The regional municipality will become the decision-making centre and, as such, the new basis for regional and social economic development in Quebec.

To deal with the various aspects of regional issues, a planning and consultation instrument is absolutely necessary, and so we have the Conseil régional de développement, the Regional Development Council. If the federal government will not recognize what is being done in Quebec to give the government's decision-makers the responsibility, funding and power to make those decisions, it is not on the right track and merely confirms its decision to centralize all powers in the centre of the country and ignore what is being done in Quebec.

Finally, we demand transfer of funding and full recognition of Quebec's exclusive responsibility for regional development.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General]

Mr. Speaker, I really wanted to hear the hon. member. Rather than a member serving his constituents, he seems to be representing bureaucrats. Frankly, the number one priority among Quebecers, and in particular those living in remote areas, is job creation. When he dares say-

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Ask your question.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

True, I should get to my question; I will have another opportunity to talk about this issue.

Could the hon. member name the federal government failures in eastern Quebec, when we know that over the last 20 years major investments were made in all kinds of port, airport and tourism infrastructures, as well as in small businesses? Does he refuse to acknowledge that more than 1,000 small businesses took advantage of the liberalities-yes, "liberalities"-of the federal government? Could he name some who might have been resounding failures? There may be some but I doubt it. I would like him to tell us who are these 500 eastern Quebec companies who were not well served by the federal government.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to remind the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine that, as regional development critic for the Official Opposition, I am not without experience. I worked in that field. If the hon. member knows his area, he will acknowledge that tens, hundreds of people in his region, his RCM, took part in the development of strategic plans for their area, in the analysis of strengths and weaknesses in the riding and the region. The results were then discussed at the regional council level and prioritized before inclusion into a concrete regional development plan. This is what I call working with people, not bureaucrats.

What I would like to stress to the hon. member, who is long on rhetoric, is that our main concern is to ensure that the proper regional development organizations in Quebec are recognized, region by region, and to ensure also that the central government, in Ottawa, recognizes Quebec's intention to decentralize its services towards the regions, bringing them closer to the people.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed the impassioned address of my hon. colleague from Richmond-Wolfe. If Quebec were to have exclusive jurisdiction in regional development, should Quebec also have exclusive responsibility for raising funds in Quebec for disbursement in Quebec? If so, would Quebec be able to maintain spending at current levels?

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did mention in my speech that this is not covered by the Constitution. The involvement of the federal government in regional development is only due to its spending power and is not enshrined in the Constitution.

The regional development initiatives taken by the Quebec government in the last 10 years have resulted in more co-operation between all the major economic, social, health and education stakeholders and a learning process during socio-economic summits, followed by consultations, which ensure that the reform introduced by Liberal minister Picotte, in Quebec, really led to some money transfers to the regions.

The current situation is best described as follows: the regions can decide and have real budgets. What we want now is to go beyond tax transfers and have the power to levy taxes through regional county municipalities. That would give us a real tax base and enable us to make real decisions and solve regional problems which would have been analyzed at once by people in the regions. So, as you see, tax points are important.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, since we only have a few seconds left, I will be brief. I just want to assure my hon. colleague that this government respects all provinces, including Quebec.

I want to ask him a question about a very important issue he raised. It has to do with overlap and duplication. Given the changes undergone by the machinery of government during the last ten years, would he not agree that progress has been made? It seems to me that we have less problems than we used to have. I have been examining this whole situation for a while and I wonder if the hon. member has come to the same conclusion as I have and would agree that progress has been made and there are less overlap and duplication than before.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

As my hon. colleague just said, it is true, Mr. Speaker, that some progress has been made and that individuals have co-operated with federal agencies in that area, but the fact is that nothing really happened. I cannot answer yes to his question. Directives and standards applied within federal agencies are never quite in sync with standards applied elsewhere. So, civil servants are always on business trips, travelling throughout the country to meet their counterparts and say: Your standard does not meet mine. We will have to meet again next week, because I have to go over this with my boss and see what can be done.

This is not only duplication, but also a waste of human resources and money.