Debates of June 1st, 1995

Privilege

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, I hope the hon. member for Kootenay East will weigh very carefully the words he is using. I believe from the words he has used the hon. member is questioning a decision taken by the Speaker of the House of Commons.

When the hon. member uses such words it calls into question not only the decision of the Speaker but also all of the House itself, as embodied in me are the rights and privileges of all members of this House.

That the hon. member is frustrated because his question was ruled out of order is to me understandable. The House has empowered me to make rulings such as these. The rulings I make are never taken frivolously and never taken to give advantage to one side or the other. My sole duty here is to see that the rights and privileges of all parliamentarians are adhered to and respected. That is what I try to do in this chair.

When the hon. member stood for his first question, I judged in that particular case he was referring to party matters. I permitted the hon. member to rephrase his question, which he did. In my judgment the question of the hon. member was in order and therefore I permitted it.

When the hon. member used words in the second question which I thought were leading down the same path as the first, I intervened.

I appeal to the hon. member who is standing on this point of privilege to please take into consideration the great weight that his words have in here. If the judgment of the Speaker is to be called into question, surely it is not because he is not being-excuse me if I do not use the right word here-responsible. But if the hon. member would like to speak with me in my chambers, I would be very happy to speak with him.

My judgment on that particular question stands. I would appeal to all hon. members to cease and desist now on this point of privilege because you are attacking your Speaker. In my view, I do not know that we can long operate like this.

I would appeal to the hon. member that if he wishes to speak to me I would more than gladly entertain him in my chambers.

If the hon. member is rising on the same point of privilege, again I would caution and appeal to the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster to choose his words very carefully.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on this point of privilege, I would like the House to look at citation 409 of Beauchesne's, clause 6 which says:

A question must be within the administrative competence of the Government. The Minister to whom the question is directed is responsible to the House for his or her present Ministry and not for any decisions taken in a previous portfolio.

The member for Kootenay East in his question said: "An undercover officer said it is a complete and utter farce. This is a definite blow to drug enforcement"-

[Some hon. members]

Sit down.

[The Speaker]

In response to the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, I am aware of the citation. I am aware of the rules that govern the House of Commons. It is because I am aware of these rules, as best I can I am trying to carry them out.

If the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster would care to pursue this point in my chambers, I would be more than happy to listen.

If the hon. members for Kindersley-Lloydminster or Kootenay East after discussions with me feel that it is so imperative to pursue this in the House then I am the servant of the House and as such I would be prepared at that time to at least consider a point of privilege. As of now, with regard to this matter, I would again appeal to both hon. members to see me in my chambers because I am not prepared to pursue it at this time any further.

Business Of The House

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as is our custom, I would like to ask the House leader if he could tell us what the order of business will be next week.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the weekly business statement.

Tomorrow the House will consider third reading of Bill C-75, the farm loans legislation and all stages of Bill C-81 respecting the Buffalo-Fort Erie bridge. I understand there is agreement to complete both these bills tomorrow.

On Monday and Tuesday, we will consider Bill C-76, the budget implementation bill and Wednesday shall be the final allotted day in the present supply period.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if the hon. government House leader would inform the House what the government's intentions are in regard to Motion No. 24.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to check the Order Paper and get back to my hon. friend. If he would like me to say something to be recorded in Hansard , I will rise on a point of order, or my parliamentary secretary will, and provide the information.

That motion is to set up a special joint committee of the House and Senate to consider a code of conduct for members and senators. Certainly it is our desire to have such a committee set up.

If the hon. member now wishes to have such a committee set up as does his colleagues, then I will be happy to consult with him, or my parliamentary secretary will, to find the appropriate time to bring that debate quickly to an end so the work of the joint committee can begin.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Supply

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say it is with mixed feelings that I rise today in the House to discuss a motion tabled by the official opposition member for Richmond-Wolfe.

By mixed feelings, I mean that, looking at the motion and the four bills mentioned therein, I sincerely do not understand a thing. The four bills that, according to the official opposition, are extremely centralizing are in fact and without a doubt excessively decentralizing.

I have mixed feelings because, as I have said before in this House, I believe that the official opposition can do a good job if it acts in good faith and stands up for its constituents' interests. Once again, I must admit these people are unable to rise above strictly partisan interests. The motion under consideration is another astonishing example of this fact.

I have mixed feelings because, on the other hand, I have the opportunity to rise in this House and express myself on what is

Canadian federalism, what it has been for years, and what it will be in the future with our government. But before I go on, let me say that the Bloc Quebecois does not seem to be following a program of its own but, rather, a program dictated by the Quebec National Assembly.

Take, for example, the motion tabled three or four weeks ago to support the claims made by the Quebec Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. That motion was essentially related to three claims submitted to the federal government by the Quebec government. There again, I had the opportunity to participate in the debate on the motion and show this House to what extent Bloc members are biased and do not want the federal system to work.

But I digress. On the one hand, you have the extremist doctrine of the Bloc Quebecois, which says that, if you look at the evolution of the federal system since 1960, you will see that we are headed for an extremely centralizing system which will soon leave very little power, if any, to the provinces. Yet, since our Liberal government came to office, there have been striking examples showing that federalism can evolve in such a way that the wishes of all the governments involved, both federal and provincial ones, can be respected.

Our federal system compares favourably with other federations in the world. For example, consumer spending by the provincial administrations is 3.5 times higher than for the federal government. That says a lot about whether we are a centralized or a decentralized federation. It indicates that the Canadian federation is in fact more decentralized than that of many other countries, including Switzerland, Germany, Australia and the United States.

As regards the fact that the Canadian federation is a model of decentralization, allow me to quote a statement made in 1977, at the University of Edinburgh, by a famous person. That person agrees with me and this government, since he clearly said that the Canadian federation is decentralized. The comment, made in English, was as follows:

And because rather often in Canada we tend to talk of the abusive centralized powers of Ottawa we tend to forget that in reality Canada is highly decentralized.

That was reported in the Globe and Mail of May 9, 1977, and the words came from none other than Quebec's Premier, Jacques Parizeau, who maintained that Canada was a model of decentralization. There you have an excellent example of double standards. You have an example that shows clearly that these people can say one thing abroad, and quite another when addressing Quebecers, when they are concerned about their own interests and their own objectives.

Besides, one only has to think of Mr. Parizeau's speech to the permanent council of French-speaking countries, on his last visit to Paris. When you listen to that speech, and consider Mr. Parizeau's comparisons of Quebec, you are not proud to be a Quebecer. Quebecers are greater than that, they are energetic, they can take their place in Canada, and they will take their place internationally. Mr. Parizeau's speech on the international scene does not reflect this energy. As a Quebecer, I am upset by such speeches.

You know that members opposite talk about centralizing federalism. At the beginning of my speech, I said I would have the opportunity to review a number of issues which clearly show that our federation is an extremely decentralized federation. Take for instance the immigration issue. The immigration agreement is a striking example of good co-operation between Quebec and Ottawa, where the province of Quebec was given more power to select immigrants.

Some argue that it does not work, but I could give you other examples, including the status of some provinces among French speaking countries. Did the province of Quebec or did New Brunswick belong at the Francophonie table? No. The federal government reached an agreement with both provinces so that these provincial governments would be considered guests among the French speaking countries and be able to fully take part in the events. This is another remarkable example of a flexible federation, but mostly of a respectful one.

The members opposite are turning a deaf ear, saying that it does not work. Let me give you some more examples. Direct collection of the GST is another good example of federal-provincial co-operation, which has an extremely positive impact on the population and makes the collection of that tax easier. This is another striking example of decentralization.

Members opposite refuse to hear anything positive and simply say that federation is not working. However, we could give them many more examples which would all indicate that our federation is flexible. They do not want to understand anything, so let us give them more examples. The St. Lawrence 2000 Agreement was signed with the province of Quebec. My colleagues opposite are leaving the House or making fun of what I say, mostly because the truth hurts. When you give them examples, they refuse to listen and leave the House. The St. Lawrence 2000 Agreement is an outstanding example of co-operation between Quebec and Ottawa. This extremely positive agreement was signed so that the St. Lawrence could get cleaned up. It is an agreement that eliminates overlap and that is beneficial to the people of Canada.

And that is not all. Some will say that is not enough. The Canada-Quebec Infrastructure Program. Is there another example of a program that has been implemented in record time like this one has? It took only four or five months to put this program in place. This program, involving the three levels of govern-

ment, municipal, provincial and federal, is aimed at setting in motion incredibly vast projects that have direct repercussions on the people and that serve the interests of the people.

Some will say that that is not all good and there is no decentralization of powers within the federation. Let us look at another example, the Communications Québec agreement, which allows the use of Communications Québec displays to advertise products available from various federal departments. This agreement exists, it has been signed, it works well and its ultimate goal is efficiency. We still have a window on the street but we can save some money.

Some will say that it is not good enough. That they are not impressed. They will say, to try and mislead Quebecers, that the system does not work despite all this.

There are many more examples. Let us take the Canada social transfer. This is a remarkable example where the official opposition has simply done an about-turn.

Members will remember that, before the budget was tabled, we were told that all programs were centralized in Ottawa, that Ottawa was controlling funds for post-secondary education, health and social programs and that there should be a global social transfer. That is what we were told before the budget.

Now to Mr. Martin's budget. We are giving the Canadian public-not just Quebec, but all of the provinces because they all requested it-the Canada social transfer, as a means of making the federation progress, as a means of showing that the system is flexible, as a means of bringing the management of funds closer to the people and of ensuring that decisions regarding spending will be more sensitive to the needs of the people.

Now that the Canada social transfer exists, now that it is reality, we are being told that that is not good, that the Minister of Human Resources Development will try to set national standards unilaterally. Just another example of the inability of the people across the way to rise above partisan interests and to seriously look at what the finance minister's budget really offers to Quebecers and Canadians.

In fact, the Canada social transfer is a Canadian decentralization model. As part of this initiative, the Minister of Human Resources Development has invited all provinces to participate in discussions with the federal government regarding national standards which will apply coast to coast.

Obviously, this bothers Bloc members. This bothers them because, if this continues, obviously the people of Quebec are going to realize, and they already do realize, that the Canadian federation is working well. This bothers them because if it works too well, like it is now, their pipedream of separating is simply going to vanish into thin air.

There has been much talk about national standards. As you know, the people across the way decry national standards. I worked on the social program reform committee, and I must say that nobody in Canada, even Quebecers, is against national standards. However, what people are against is the federal government unilaterally setting those national standards.

Times have changed. The federal government has said repeatedly: "We want a flexible system. We want to work together with all the provinces and, because we are a country, to develop national standards that will respect the identities, wishes and needs of the provinces from coast to coast".

Another example of decentralization is the Human Resources Investment Fund that will come into force in April 1996. It is a good example of how we respect the wishes and the will of the people. There was a reference to manpower issues and to the need for decentralizing manpower services. There are two schools of thought. There is the position taken by the Parti Quebecois in Quebec City and the position taken by the public, which is the one we have chosen.

The Parti Quebecois takes the position that everything related to manpower development and manpower training should be theirs alone because they are the experts and know best what is needed. On the other side we have the public that wants to see a partnership between various levels of government that will have access to flexible funding, as opposed to rigid programs, funding that organizations at the local level will be able to manage according to genuine need.

I need hardly add that the course of action chosen by this government is clearcut, straightforward and non-partisan.

I am happy to say that this is the route the people wanted us to take. This is what the human resources investment fund is about. It will ensure that local agencies will be able to manage very flexible funds according to the real needs of the community.

There is another thing. Those opposite criticize us from time to time for intervening in regional economic development. We intervene, because people ask us to. People ask us to intervene as the federal government and also as a partner.

Am I to understand that what members opposite want is for the federal government to withdraw essentially from its regional development function? Does this mean that all the money invested in people to strengthen our economic fibre should be

withdrawn? They will have the task of explaining locally why they want the federal government out of regional development when we have very recent and particularly eloquent examples of efficiency and of funds invested, once again, in business, in the economy and, ultimately, in the people.

Recently, we announced the CESAM project in Montreal. It is a remarkable project, another partnership with the province and private enterprise. It brings together people from the same sector to exchange information and knowledge thus making Quebec businesses competitive not only provincially, not only nationally but internationally. This is what today's Quebec is all about. This is the sort of positive talk the people of Quebec want to hear, talk that is in their interest and that will make them stronger and more viable economically.

There are other remarkable examples proving that we are headed in the right direction. What about Team Canada, headed by the Prime Minister, which also brought back $11.3 billion in contracts. In conclusion, noteworthy examples demonstrating that, if we work together to ensure Quebec felt its interests were well protected both at the National Assembly and in Ottawa, we could build a strong Quebec and a strong country.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Outremont was speaking about the great Quebec dream. I think he dreams that one day Canada will be good for us, but this is an illusion. If he would just look at the results, the consequences of the Canadian federation, maybe he would have the answer to his dreams.

I always look at the results first and, in our case, the result is that Canada now has an accumulated debt of $600 billion and that it cannot even balance its budget. That is the result, the consequence of federalism. We should stop talking about nice agreements between Canada and Quebec, we should stop saying that everything is fine and dandy. We cannot even balance the budget and the Canadian federation has turned into a fiasco over a short period of time.

It is urgent that we put our house in order. As Mr. Lévesque once said so well: "Canada is like having two scorpions in a bottle; they try to kill each other, they both want to prove that they are distinct and different, they both want to spread out, but they are stuck in the same bottle. One day they will both die". This is what is happening now. We are on the edge of the abyss, we are both dying.

Because there are two nations in this country, it is urgent that each one become a country and that we give ourselves a chance to thrive. That is the reality. That is the mandate Quebecers gave us. They sent us here to Ottawa for that purpose. They told us: "Go to Ottawa to promote sovereignty; it is essential and urgent for Quebec because we are now in death throes financially.

We hear nice stories about common projects, a million here, a million there, a dozen million elsewhere, and we try to make Quebecers believe that federalism is a way of life and that without it Quebecers could not survive.

In duplications alone, this system costs $2 to $3 billion. We are told that the administration cost of the GST, for individuals and businesses, is in the order of $2 to $3 billion. We did not need that. All the government had to do was say: "Administer the tax. Combine it with yours immediately. Hide it if you want, but administer it in a sensible way and we will return a certain percentage to you". But that is not the way the federal government does it, it returns money to Quebec as if it were a gift.

The federal government has always tried to do it this way, to make Quebecers believe that without the federal government they would, all of a sudden, become much poorer. This is not true. The government always forget to say that Quebec sends $29 billion, that is $29,000 million, to Ottawa, every year, and the federal government uses this money according to its own priorities and most of the time without due consideration to Quebec priorities. More often than not decisions are made unilaterally. The government does not care whether Quebec prospers or not, as we have seen when the government spent $2 billion of Quebec's money to promote Hibernia, when everybody knows that it will never be viable. Yet, Quebecers will continue to pay.

This was a nice dream, sure, but it is time to come back to reality. And the reality is that we are two peoples and that, if we want to move ahead, we must separate into two different countries.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I listen to the opposition member, I seriously wonder if we are really living in the same world and if, in the last year and a half, he has looked at the policies carried out by the present government.

First of all, when people on the other side of the House tell us that Quebecers elected them to make Quebec's independence, I think that is playing down the issues of the last election. Quebecers told us, in the last election, that they expressed their discontent at the ballot box, and it simply happened that the vote went heavily to the Bloc Quebecois.

Why discontent? There were years of Conservative government when an absolutely incredible debt and deficit were built up, and I point out that the hon. member who just spoke was part of that government and voted for all its legislation. Moreover, there were years that resulted in the people losing confidence in the government machinery, in the public servants.

I think that, today, when we look at the polls in general and the work done by this government in the last few months, we can see clearly that the people of Canada and Quebec have regained this confidence, because we promised certain things during the last election campaign and we delivered, because these promises,

the economy and job creation, were of interest and concern to the people. Last year, 430,000 jobs were created, and we are still creating more.

So, essentially, in everything that my colleague has been saying about the debt and the fact that Quebec would simply go and beg for these things in Ottawa, we can see that it is the Bloc Quebecois that is trying to make sure Quebec is perceived that way. But that is totally untrue. Quebec has a large place in the Canadian federation. On the economic level, Quebec plays an extremely important role within the federation. And on this side of the House, we want to make sure that Quebec and the nine other provinces can first develop individually, but also within the Canadian federation and according to major international trends, that they can develop together and excel on the international scene. That is our goal and we will succeed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Since there are only two minutes left, I will divide them between the question and the answer. I give the floor to the hon. member for Témiscamingue.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of our friend from Outremont, who loved to pass out cheques for the infrastructure program, of which he spoke with a certain wistfulness. He also referred to my colleague of Longueuil who is a former Conservative. I would remind him that the latter at least had the courage to cross the floor and change sides. I hope the hon. member will have as much courage when the time comes to make decisions in the interest of Quebec, which he is supposed to represent.

My colleague said all sorts of things about decentralization. He chose a good example when he spoke of the Canada social transfer. Actually, it was the deficit that was decentralized. I hope he will rise in caucus to defend the interests of Quebec, because he should know that Quebec might have to bear more than 40 per cent of those cuts. I also hope, when he talks about the consensus in Quebec about manpower training, that he will be intelligent enough to look at what is really going on. The consensus is not only inside the Parti Quebecois. Ghislain Dufour is not, as far as I know, a member of the Parti Quebecois, and is not likely to become one in the near future. Yet, he was among those who said that manpower training should be the responsibility of the government of Quebec.

What positive action he intends to take in the coming weeks within his own party to defend the interests of Quebec on those two issues?

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when they hear things that do not please them, the members of the Bloc Quebecois launch into personal attacks, saying such things as: "I hope my colleague for Outremont will be intelligent enough-" Obviously, what I said does not suit him, because he is not hearing what he would like to hear from members on this side. He knows that what he is hearing from members on this side is also what the people want to hear.

As for the Canada social transfer and the human resources investment fund, I was among the members of Quebec who stood for these issues in the national caucus, and for two reasons. First, we are an economically responsible government. As such, we had to rationalize the programs to propoerly manage the debt and the deficit. Second, we had to decentralize as well, because that was what people were asking for. I was among those who championed these two programs. I am proud of it, and proud of what the government did.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate in this debate on the official opposition's motion denouncing the excessive centralization of powers by the federal government, which is preparing, without saying anything and without consultations, a new, centralized Canada by passing at least the four bills we mentioned.

I will not repeat my colleagues' extremely important and interesting explanations on Bill C-88, Bill C-91 and Bill C-46. I, however, have a lot to say about the bill to implement the budget. But first, I would like to talk about unemployment and poverty in Quebec.

I want to explain why the sovereignists here in Ottawa and in Quebec want to achieve sovereignty, after all the years of repeatedly trying to convince others that Quebec needs more than crumbs and federal commissions. Because we are a people and a nation, we need control over Quebec's economic and social development. Let us talk about poverty. This year, Quebec won the award for poverty.

In its report released this year, the Family and Social Affairs Council showed that, in 1993, Quebec came first among poor provinces for the number and percentage of people and families living below the poverty line.

Last month, 803,900 people-372,000 households-were on welfare in Quebec. This figure includes people who are willing to work and a large number of children we are concerned about, because children raised with the bare minimum often lack what they need in life to develop normally.

Poverty has many causes but that is not what we hear because of the strong prejudices against poor people, who are already facing great difficulties. In summary, poverty is not only a lack of money but also a deep sense of failure, of insecurity, of vulnerability, of worthlessness. All additional failures, such as fruitless job searches, problems with the spouse or children, and

difficulties in finding suitable housing or in meeting nutritional needs, further marginalize the poor.

Losing a job often leads to poverty. By making drastic cuts to UI, the government has reduced the number of recipients, not because there are fewer unemployed workers, but because a smaller number of them are eligible for benefits.

In Canada, only 49 per cent of the unemployed qualified for UI benefits last month, as compared to 77 percent in 1990. As far as unemployment is concerned, the rate is 14.4 per cent in Quebec and it is seasonally adjusted, while the rate of unemployment in Ontario is 8.7 per cent. That is almost three percentage points lower.

To compare Quebec to Ontario or the rest of Canada, we must consider not only the number of persons who are unemployed, but more appropriately the number of persons who are employed; this is called the employment population ratio. It is quite simple. If 65 per cent of the population 15 and older has a job, therefore producing wealth, spending money on clothes and putting some in the bank, much more wealth will be produced than if 50 per cent of the same population was employed.

When you look at the difference between employment and population, you notice differences much greater and more alarming than those for unemployment. For example, the employment population ratio for Ontario is 59 per cent, as compared to 53.8 per cent in Quebec. This means that, quite apart from the unemployment rate, thousands of jobs would be required just for Quebec to match the level of employment in Ontario.

That is not all. What is absolutely tragic is that, if you compare Quebec to the rest of Canada, if you compile statistics on all of Canada minus Quebec, what do you find? You find that the overall employment population ratio for Canada is 59 per cent, while in Quebec, as I indicated earlier, it is only 53.8 per cent. This is a very substantial gap.

It is important to remind you why we are angry in Quebec, and I am not referring only to our anger but to the anger we can feel brewing in many people, ordinary citizens who are unable to find work, who are given funny looks by UI or welfare officers because they always take them for defrauders at first, and the anger of community groups striving to help those in need, and seeing their resources cut time and time again while the need for assistance continues to grow.

You may wonder what this has to do with the motion. The connection between the two is extremely important because, after a long process- of which I will relate the details, time permitting-we came to the conclusion that our only chance to make it was to take control of all the levers, to pass all our legislation, to collect all our taxes, and to sign all our treaties, including treaties with the rest of Canada.

Let me read you a text which I recently came upon. It was written by René Lévesque, then a federalist Liberal minister responsible for family and welfare issues, at a conference on poverty held in Ottawa, on December 10, 1965.

Mr. Lévesque said: "It is absolutely essential, to use a redundancy, that the government primarily responsible for developing and implementing these measures on our territory be the Quebec government. This is the only way to ensure efficient action. It is also the only way to implement a co-ordinated policy for economic and social development which will truly put the accent on the individual".

We could use those same words today to explain our program.

Mr. Lévesque added: "We do not feel it necessary to prove that our government is closer to its population than Ottawa is. Our government is by far in the best position to adapt the possible solutions to the needs of its citizens. It is so because our government has the immediate data on land development, and also because it can monitor the implementation of its selected policies and make necessary changes without having to wait for federal-provincial conferences which take ages to organize or which are useless".

I might add that there has not been any federal-provincial conference on the vital issue of manpower since this government took office.

Mr. Lévesque continued by saying: "Moreover, our government can more easily enlist the co-operation of its citizens than the federal government could. This is important at a time when the issues of democratic planning and concerted action by citizens and their government take on a greater significance. Moreover, how could we possibly ensure the necessary co-operation in the socio-economic sector if, in addition to the usual problems related to co-ordinating the efforts of a large number of Quebec departments, we would also have to take into account similar initiatives and projects by the federal government? To raise the question is to answer it".

Those words were written by René Lévesque in 1965, when he was a Liberal minister, in his last days as a federalist.

In those days, René Lévesque thought it was possible to have some kind of arrangement with Ottawa while keeping control in Quebec. We are a people. We are a nation. In our house-our economic and social development-we cannot have two architects, two teams of engineers working their own way, with

separate budgets, and giving orders. That is what our motion is all about.

The federal government is making the plan of our house, with our money and without consulting us, when we already have a plan in Quebec. We do not have all the money we need, because part of it was coming to us from transfers originating in our own pockets. In our confederation, the constitution gives the federal government the power to collect money to spend in areas that are outside its jurisdiction.

So, the federal government uses our own money to draw the plan of our house without consulting us, while, on our side, we try as best we can, with whatever means left to us, to prevent the worst, in a situation where we have 803,000 welfare recipients and more than 327,000 unemployed, not to mention people who have given up, and the young who have no hope.

It is hard to keep calm when we hear the federal government bragging that it brought its deficit under control. How dit it manage to do it? By transferring cuts instead of money to provinces, and more particularly Quebec. I stressed how, more than ever, Quebec's economy needs only one architect and only one team of engineers working under the control of that architect, in co-operation with others when information is needed. However, we just cannot continue with this madhouse being built at the people's expense, in spite of the 130 members elected by Quebecers out of a total of 200 at both levels of government.

Quebecers elect, at both the federal and provincial levels, 200 parliamentarians, 130 of whom are sovereignists. They are fed up with the central government using taxpayers' money to try to build a house they do not want, with blueprints they do not want, and for whose satisfaction? To satisfy those who, since confederation, think they are the only ones who know what kind of house should be built, and how.

Now, we happen to be a nation. We are not only a distinct society, but a nation. We are a nation according to every existing international criterion, the main one being the collective will to live. This collective will to live is our main mandate to see to it that our house is built following our blueprints and, moreover, with our money.

I want to read, if I may, a motion that I have just this instant received, and that has just been tabled in the National Assembly: "That the Quebec National Assembly call upon the federal government to review its Bill C-91, which will have the effect of sanctioning the federal government's interference and increasing duplication in regional development".

This comes just at the right moment in my speech. Yes, we will do our utmost to explain that to Quebecers, who have had about as much as they can take of the problems of everyday life-and we can understand that sometimes they do not know which way to turn. We will try to explain to them that it is absurd, with our limited resources, to have two teams of architects contradicting each other, whereas there is only one team they can control democratically. The only one they can control democratically is the one they elect.

Some could say: "Oh! but why is it not Ottawa that looks after all of Canada's economy?" We could have a group of economists who would disagree on many things, but who would agree on one thing, that is as culture goes, so goes the economy. The Japanese do not think like the French, the Germans or the Americans when it comes to the economy and money. What is working for Toyota in Japan is not necessarily working in Mississauga.

The same is true for Boisbriand versus Mississauga. Why? Because culture has a profound influence on how we work, on how we create, on how we organize, on how we sell, on what we decide to work on. It is in the name of this culture, in a broad sense, and in the name of this nation that we are saying in this House, and I understand that it can be annoying, that the movement will not stop. As René Lévesque, who was to become the founder of the Parti Quebecois, said in 1965, once a movement has started, nothing can stop it.

It would be better to start realizing that we will have to negotiate together, but let no one think that they are going to sneak one past us, that they are going to ignore us and create a Canada in which we will not feel perfectly at home, with our money and against our interests. I spoke mostly of Quebec, but I would like to conclude by saying that if the bills in question allow for a better development of Canada, I would say great, if that is what you want. I respect your culture and I respect the fact that that is how you want to develop, but for Quebec, and I am speaking in the name of the majority of members elected by Quebecers, it will not do.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. In her speech, the hon. member said that there was anger among Quebecers. She said that she felt that anger, and I agree with her, it is true that there is anger among Quebecers, but I would simply like to point out to the hon. member that that anger, and it does exist, comes from a great disappointment vis-à-vis the present Quebec government. The other way to govern of that government, which is a branch of the Bloc Quebecois, scares Quebecers.

We even saw sovereignist central labour bodies question their allegiance to sovereignty. Just consider the cuts in health care, which is a provincial jurisdiction. So, yes, there is anger. Since you also talked about your plan, about the architects, I will ask you a very simple question: Since you have a plan-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order, please. I simply want to remind my colleagues on both sides of the House that all comments must be made through the chair and not directly, from one side of the floor to the other.

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask this of the hon. member: If you have architects, if you have a plan, why wait? I would like to know when the Quebec government will decide to call a referendum with a simple and clear question.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you will understand that it is not up to me to answer that question and to say when the referendum will be held. It will be held when the Government of Quebec, which has the power to hold such a referendum under Quebec law, will decide to do so.

However, I would like to respond to my hon. colleague who suggested that our anger comes from our disappointment in the present Parti Quebecois government. With all due respect, my colleague is mistaken. I want to tell him that we did not find ourselves with so many people on welfare and unemployed overnight and that the previous government, which was in office for nine years, had something to do with it.

I want to remind the member that as soon as the previous government led by Robert Bourassa came into office, it asked the central government to negotiate so that Quebec could regain powers in five areas in order to rejoin the constitutional fold. It thought it was important not only from a cultural standpoint, but also for the economy.

I want to remind the member that, for years, we had a federalist Liberal government, led by Mr. Bourassa, and a central government that wanted to help Quebec back into the Constitution because it had been imposed upon it even though that Constitution brought fundamental changes to the rules established at the time of Confederation in 1867. But Robert Bourassa saw the Meech Lake Accord fail because of whom? Because of the party that is now in office. We know, and it has been well documented in the newspapers and in many history books, that this party put pressure on some people, one of our honourable colleagues who shall remain nameless and the premier of Newfoundland, Clyde Wells, to get them to oppose this deal. And then the federalist Liberal Party of Quebec voted for the Allaire report, which left very few powers to the federal government.

What did it do after that? There was the Bélanger-Campeau commission, and then it adopted a bill, Bill 150, saying that it would hold a referendum if it did not get satisfactory offers, which we know never came.

Despite all that, a referendum was held and, as we all remember, the Charlottetown agreement was rejected in Quebec because it was not enough and in the rest of Canada because it was too much. Now we are being told that the people are angry because of the unemployment and welfare situation, they are angry at all the levels of governments, and they are angry because they feel powerless, and I can certainly understand them, and all that anger is directed towards the new government.

I had a better opinion of my Quebec colleague than that. Politics does not make you lose your analytical ability, your knowledge of history or your good sense. Yes, people are more and more angry, and my hon. colleagues should realize that our constituents want change. It is true that a large number of people are facing such problems that it does not make sense any longer.

You only have to think about these women who are walking from Montreal to Quebec City-at first it was for bread and roses, but I am sure it is not rosy all the time-who are painstakingly making their way to Quebec City to show that poverty as they know it does not make sense. Their situation was documented, written about, told, but now they want concrete solutions. These women know full well that our scope of action is limited as long as the province of Quebec does not have all the powers it needs.

Even within a sovereign Quebec, we will not be able to make all the needed changes instantly, but we know we will eliminate all the overlap and stop arguing, when we cannot even take the necessary measures to help the ordinary citizens. Ottawa will never do this for Quebec. So, everyone, including my hon. colleagues, will have to join us to build Quebec.

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the remarks made by the last speakers, particularly those made by the member for Longueuil who blamed the national debt on the Canadian federation. I also listened to the remarks made by the member for Mercier who, at the beginning of her speech, was going to blame the poverty level in the Montreal area on federalism, or I thought she would, but she stopped.

Moreover, she tried to say that the high unemployment rate was again a consequence of the federal system. Strangely enough, she forgot to mention that, even with the Canada social transfer, Quebec benefits considerably from federalism through equalization.

Many studies have clearly shown that Quebec has been able to grow within a federal system while benefiting enormously from such a system. She also forgot to mention that, through the unemployment insurance program, Quebec gets over $1 billion more.

In this last allotted day that the official opposition has during this session, it has chosen once again to talk about four bills in order to try to show that federalism does not work, that the government wants to centralize powers. In her speech, the

member for Mercier also said that the time has come for Quebecers to take complete control of their own destiny.

However, I find it hard to keep a straight face when I hear these arguments, because in their draft bill, they want their dollar to be the Canadian dollar, they want their passport to be a Canadian passport. And throughout the debate on these issues, they want to determine the scope and subject of the referendum question. They had a debate, and they told us the question would include one on political and economic association with Canada. It seems to me they want what Canada has to offer. In that case, I challenge them to do the following. Instead of wasting the 10 or 11 million dollars it cost to conduct these consultations-the hon. member for Mercier also mentioned the high poverty rate-I think this money would have been better spent on dealing with unemployment and poverty.

So we have four bills that were mentioned together in an attempt to demonstrate that federalism, as they see it, has become centralist.

I would like to discuss Bill C-76, which implements certain provisions of the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance. In referring to this bill, the opposition is very critical and says we want to centralize everything. In fact, the only condition set by the government for the Canada social transfer is the period of residence, which cannot disqualify a recipient from receiving social assistance.

The other criterion, which already exists, is maintaining the five principles of health care. At the request of the Province of Quebec and the other provinces, the government decided to group these transfers. Again, at the request of the provinces, the government gave them a set target budget, guaranteed for a period of two years. And the members of the Bloc Quebecois complain that we want to centralize powers!

I find it very hard to understand how the motion could possibly be about centralization, since in this bill and other bills, and also in our approach as a government, we have shown repeatedly that we want to decentralize powers, in two respects. The first one is to eliminate overlap and duplication. Not because it is the will of the Province of Quebec or of the Bloc. No. Because it is the will of all of Canada, all Canadians, because it will save us money. That is what we are doing.

My presentation is about Bill C-91, the bill in relation to which the National Assembly just passed a motion, as the hon. member for Mercier just said. As I will explain, I find it hard to believe how the Bloc Quebecois can construe this bill as an effort on the part of the federal government to once again centralize powers.

Canada and Quebec have entered a new phase of economic growth. The federal administration is sensitive to the globalization of markets and to the increased emphasis on competitiveness. We are redefining the federal government's approach to the economy.

The most important part of this new approach is recognizing the dynamic role that small and medium size businesses play in job creation and the creation of wealth.

This government has developed many approaches and reworked its strategy and its tools to take into consideration the key role that they play in our economic prosperity.

Bill C-91 gives the Federal Business Development Bank a new mandate. Under this new mandate the bank will be able to increase its activity in smaller loans and investments and focus more on knowledge based industries and exporters, two of the thriving forces in the global economy.

A key element of the bank's new mandate is partnership. Bill C-91 makes it easier for the bank to work in close partnership with other partners. These new closer partnerships will help small and medium size businesses and will avoid inefficient and costly overlap and duplication, contrary to what the members of the Bloc Quebecois have said.

The opposition's reaction to Bill C-91 disappoints me. The opposition claims that the objectives of this bill are to usurp provincial powers, to build a centralized state and to take considerable powers away from Quebec.

This opinion could only be based on a misinterpretation of clause 20 of this bill.

Clause 20 says: "The bank may enter into agreements with and act as agents for any department or agency of the Government of Canada or a province or any other body or person for the provision of services or programs to, on behalf of, or jointly with that body or person". I do not know how the opposition member can misread that. It is quite clear. This is not in any way an intrusion by the federal government into provincial jurisdiction. Clause 20 of Bill C-91 facilitates co-operative joint ventures with partners from the private sector as well as the public sector.

Clause 20 permits the bank to enter into agreements with other persons and organizations, including federal and provincial government departments and agencies. The authorization applies to the bank, not to the other parties involved. Let me repeat that again so members of the opposition understand. Clause 20 applies to the bank only. I think this is where they are having a hard time. It does not apply to the other parties at all. The other parties, whether they be government agencies or

provincial boards, still have to obtain proper authorization from their jurisdictional authorities before entering into any agreement with the bank.

In circumstances and situations in which a jurisdictional body must grant authorization for a partner to enter an agreement there will be no change.

Why is this change necessary? Because the wording of the previous legislation limited the bank's ability to conclude agreements with non commercial firms. In some cases, these organizations, some of which come under provincial jurisdiction, proposed to the bank itself that it help provide financial and management services.

The bank could not do anything at the time, because it lacked the legislative authority to enable it to co-operate. A lot of time and effort went into obtaining this authority. Clause 20 will eliminate all the bureaucratic red tape and will make it possible to provide more effective services, which small business can use.

Clause 20 of Bill C-91 is very technical I will admit, but it allows the bank to enter into joint co-operative agreements. Clause 20 will allow partnerships, joint ventures and even the delivery of financial assistance on behalf of other agencies subject to the banks usual guidelines.

As an example of co-operation and collaboration, the Federal Business Development Bank and FORD-Q, the body responsible for regional development in Quebec, are currently developing a strategic partnership as part of a pilot project. The object is to create a special fund which will have a leverage effect in order to support projects undertaken by small and medium size enterprises in unexploited niches.

In addition, the bank has developed strategic partnerships with agencies and departments of Quebec's provincial government. For example, the bank recently completed an agreement to develop a technology training and counselling program with le Ministère de l'Industrie, du Commerce et de la Technologie du Québec and the Professional Engineers Association of Quebec.

The bank, moreover, joined with the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre to start up a program to promote and encourage women's initiatives in conjunction with a Bank of Montreal program to train and develop business women.

Together with the Maison régionale de l'industrie in Sherbrooke, the Federal Regional Development Office designed a program to advise and train new exporters. The power to establish partnerships is no different from similar provisions in legislation governing other crown corporations, including the Farm Credit Corporation and the Export Development Corporation.

I must point out at this point that the ability to enter into partnerships certainly follows one of the recommendations of "Taking Care of Business", the report which the Standing Committee on Industry released in October 1994. I had the pleasure to sit on that committee. The committee recommended that the mandate of the bank be confirmed and refocused as a complementary lender to small and medium size businesses and that it be authorized to use new financial instruments to fulfil its mandate. The two members of the Bloc Quebecois who sit on that committee were in full agreement with that recommendation.

Bill C-91 is an important element in creating the supportive environment for small and medium size enterprises across Canada which will contribute to building a long and lasting prosperity. This bill is one part of the future we are building for small businesses and for Canada's economic prosperity.

There is no doubt about the importance of small and medium size businesses to our economy today and tomorrow. Small businesses employ more than half of the Canadians working in the private sector. Since the early 1980s small businesses have created over 87 per cent of all new jobs in Canada.

Small and medium size businesses will continue to be a source of jobs and wealth in Canada. Our goal is to create a climate in which businesses will be able to continue to create jobs for Canadians, and to contribute to the wealth of the country.

We are taking action on this basis, and moving toward our goal. In 1994, we asked several groups and organizations in the public and private sectors, including the committee, how the government could create a suitable climate to foster the growth of small businesses.

Everybody agreed that small and medium size businesses have great potential to create even more jobs and wealth. Unfortunately, that potential is too often left untapped. The groups and organizations we consulted said that, in order to tap this potential, the government had to start with reducing the deficit. The first step was taken by the finance minister in his last budget.

Moreover, they told us that we must develop more efficient, more effective, and more relevant programs for small businesses. Finally, we must recognize that the government cannot, on its own, foster, in the small business community, the vitality and the growth the country needs.

On the basis of these recommendations, we outlined in our report entitled Building a More Innovative Economy a wide range of initiatives aimed at fostering the growth of small business in Canada.

In the vital area of financing, we have pressed the banks to improve their relationship with small businesses. We have taken steps to ease access to capital for innovative projects. We are refocusing federal government financing programs to fill in the gaps left by the private sector.

At our urging, the Canadian Bankers Association developed a code of conduct to help ensure accountability, understandable contracts, more efficient credit processing, and an effective method in dealing with complaints. Member banks are incorporating these standards into their own codes of conduct.

The federal regional agencies, such as the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Federal Office of Regional Development in Quebec, western diversification, and the federal office of regional economic development for northern Ontario, have all refocused their programs almost entirely on small businesses. Federal agencies now focus on recoverable contributions and information to businesses.

At the end of the 1994 fiscal year, we amended the Small Businesses Loans Act by increasing the credit ceiling to $12 billion in order to meet the ever growing demand.

On April 1, we implemented other amendments allowing for cost recovery in accordance with our overall deficit reduction goal. These amendments will also help identify the main beneficiaries of the program.

In the next few weeks, we will table further amendments to the SBLA in order to get on with the process of recovering all program costs and make other minor changes affecting lenders and borrowers.

The review of the small business policy clearly showed that one of the most pressing problems facing small and medium size businesses is access to capital.

The review of the role and mandate of the Federal Business Development Bank was a key element of the government's efforts to improve this access.

The Federal Business Development Bank, since it started almost 50 years ago as the former Industrial Development Bank, has helped Canadian businesses respond to the changing demands of the economy through timely and innovative financing and management services. As the economy changes again, the time has now come to change the Federal Business Development Act as it stands.

The purpose of Bill C-91 is to modernize the bank's mandate. It is based on the experience and skills acquired to provide the financial and administrative leadership needed by small and medium size businesses in the knowledge-based economy, without neglecting traditional finance sectors.

The Business Development Bank of Canada will be an important source of support to small business, as it will be able to fill in what I would call the "gaps" faced by small and medium size businesses across the country.

Bill C-91 in no way intrudes on provincial jurisdiction. It does not take powers away from any province. It does, however, make this very important institution more flexible and more responsive to the needs of small and medium sized businesses for the benefit of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member for Vaudreuil that he missed something in his remarks. He clearly identified the needs of the small and medium size business sector, needs that we recognize because in Quebec-and there was much talk about this in committee-all the organizations concerned and directly involved with meeting the needs of this industry, not only in terms of development but also in terms of export, have been identified.

Take the solidarity funds, the Paillé project and the regional development fund for example. And now, in the wake of the APEX program, we are setting up in all of Quebec's regions a commissioner of exports system.

The hon. member for Vaudreuil failed to assess the impact of Bill C-91 on regional development. He was careful not to get into the impact of the provision in which the federal government gives itself the power to step in and enter into agreements directly with whomever it wants in Quebec, whether an organization, a regional development council, a municipality, a business or what not.

However, the hon. member for Vaudreuil knows very well that, in terms of regional development, Quebec is the only province where a federal development office called FORD-Q has been established, with offices in every region of the province. No such agency exists elsewhere in Canada. In the rest of Canada, regional development is overseen through agencies like ACOA in the east for Atlantic Canada, WDO, which stands for Western Diversification Office, for western Canada, or FEDNOR in Ontario. And these agencies do not have regional offices all over the place.

This FORD-Q we are talking about is everywhere in Quebec. We call it the delivery arm, seeing that this agency signs memoranda of understanding with other departments, which in turn deliver services, having themselves signed MOUs with the Federal Bank.

We have put questions to the Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency as well as the Minister of Industry for Ontario, and none of them was aware of the existence of a delivery arm elsewhere in Canada. None of these development authorities had heard about agreements or MOUs between departments. Incredible efforts are made in Quebec in terms of federal interference in regional development.

I would like to tell the hon. member for Vaudreuil that the position taken by the official opposition should come as no surprise to him. After all, he said that Quebec is a prime mover and a leader in regional development. This fact was stated quite simply.

In Quebec, we have a decentralized sectorial and political structure. The powers related to regional development were delegated to various organizations accountable to the Quebec government. Some of these organizations are present in the hon. member's riding of Vaudreuil, and he knows these structures. There are regional county municipalities, municipalities, school boards, CEGEPs, universities, regional health boards, Quebec manpower development societies, regional manpower councils and regional development councils. All these organizations are established in the province's 16 administrative regions and are accountable to the Quebec government.

Moreover, there is an act respecting the ministère du Conseil exécutif, which provides that the Quebec government is the only authority which can sign development agreements, or any other type of agreement, with other governments.

Yet, through its bills, the federal government is assuming the authority to unilaterally interfere by reaching agreements with organizations which are under Quebec's jurisdiction. This is a flat rejection of a Quebec law, as well as a flat denial of the Quebec government's jurisdiction over regional development.

The legislation on the business development bank of Canada, which seeks to allow agreements with federal or provincial departments and organizations, as well as with any other body or individual, goes so far as to say that the bank could act as agent for such organizations. This is a direct and blatant attempt to take over regional development, by totalling bypassing the Quebec government and dismissing its authority.

I want to tell the hon. member for Vaudreuil that, in August 1991, some of his Quebec Liberal colleagues denounced the establishment, by order in council, of the federal office of regional development in Quebec. Indeed, the Quebec Liberal minister responsible for regional development, Yvon Picotte, was quick to react to the order in council confirming the establishment of a federal department of regional development and the appointment of a deputy minister in that department.Mr. Picotte said that, under the more discreet title of Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec, the new department could, in the medium term, end up costing Quebec regions a lot. The federal government does not have the expertise to ensure that the subsidized projects will match the regional development priorities that were set these last few years by all of the stakeholders within each of Quebec's regions." He also said: "It is obvious that, with this federal approach, Quebec is faced with a fait accompli through orders in council.''

What do we find in the bills which are central to today's debate? Exactly the same thing. Let us not forget that it was his Liberal friends from Quebec who protested. I should add that the then Minister of Federal-Provincial Relations, Mr. Rémillard, stated on August 8, 1991, that the government of Quebec was determined to stop co-operating with the federal government in the area of regional development.

The Quebec minister reminds us of the conditions for approval-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order! I think we all understand that the question and comment period can lead to debate. I would certainly like to give the hon. member for Vaudreuil the opportunity to answer these comments and questions. I would ask the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe to conclude so that our colleague can answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was getting to my question. Given all these facts, which are not necessarily the work of the Bloc Quebecois, but are the results of all the negotiations held throughout the years with our Liberal colleagues opposite, who protested against our approach, how can the hon. member for Vaudreuil forget to mention the direct impact these bills will have on regional development and control, and refuse to recognize that Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction in this area?

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Vaudreuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the industry committee has been examining this bill for three days now and here, in the House, the minister has now been trying to allay the hon. member's fears for two or three days. With each passing day, I realize that his understanding of this bill's role is getting lesser and lesser.

The clock is ticking away and, unless we pass this bill before the end of June, there will be no more money for the Federal Business Development Bank, to name one, and no more money for small and medium size businesses. One of the aims of this bill is to increase the capital available to these businesses as loans.

The hon. members say that no other province boasts so many regional offices. That is because the other provinces, like the four Atlantic provinces, have their own agency. I know at least 70 members from Ontario who would like to get their hands on the budget for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec to give it to Ontario, where the program does not even exist.

I am going to quote again the clause with which the hon. member seems to have so much difficulty. Clause 20 clearly says that "The Bank may enter into agreements with, and act as agent for, any department or agency of the government of Canada or a province-"

I am stopping here because I think he is stumbling on the word "province". When he talks about the RCMs, municipalities and school boards of Quebec-I must agree that municipalities were created by the provincial government-that did not prevent us from signing the Canada-Quebec infrastructure agreement with all three levels of government.

Therefore, I fail to see why he should worry, because, in my opinion, there is no cause for worry. We can sign agreements with agencies, and if they fall under provincial jurisdiction, the agencies, for example a municipality, will be obliged by law to obtain the provincial government's agreement.

There is no doubt in my mind that we are not trying to erode powers. What we are trying to do is resolve the problem many small and medium size businesses are having regarding access to capital. This bill aims to bring within their reach the $50,000, $60,000 or $100,000 they need, which banks cannot offer them, at the moment.