Debates of March 12th, 1997

Supply

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

Madam Speaker, in Quebec, there is an expression which goes something like this: Since we are in a mess anyway, why not go all the way. This is unbelievable.

During the debate on the issue before us today, I heard the member for Outremont sing the praises of regional development as if there had been no regional development until he came along. I would like to remind him of three very important facts.

First, the Quebec government has been concerned with regional development for more than 30 years. The Quebec government has long demanded of the Government of Canada that it be the only one involved in its own regional development.

Let us not forget that when we came here in 1993, the Office of Federal Economic Development and the Business Development Bank of Canada already existed in Quebec and the economic development agreements had already been in existence for two decades.

The Office of Federal Economic Development was merely a division of the Department of Industry. There was no parent legislation governing it, as is the case for western economic diversification and ACOA in the maritimes, or even for FedNor in northern Ontario.

What did we do when we got here? In 1993, we immediately tried to determine who was responsible for regional development. It was a certain minister of Finance. In this House, even if we asked the government about its regional development activities, there was absolutely no decision making, no dialogue with Quebec and no answers to Quebec's very simple requests concerning regional development.

Quebec has always said to the federal government: "Just transfer the money and tax points, because regional development is our concern".

Having been asked for a while, but to no avail, who was responsible for regional development, the federal government was suddenly inspired and decided to change the focus of the industry legislation. I remember. It was Bill C-46.

This change of focus also changed all of FORD's objectives, which became directly related to the Department of Industry. For the first time, we had a real minister in charge of development. Who was it? None other than the Minister of Industry, who comes from Ontario. This confirmed that Ontario had been made responsible for regional development in Quebec.

We were slightly embarrassed by that situation naturally, so at the next cabinet shuffle, our colleague, the member for Outremont, was called upon to help the Liberals save face. Our colleague from Outremont could be seen in the windows of the 13 regional development offices, handing out Canadian flags along with the cheques attesting to the federal government's involvement in regional development. But all this was very much out of line with Quebec's traditional demands.

On this point, I would like to bring back to your attention one provision of Bill C-46. When the Department of Industry was restructured, they said it would have the authority to design, recommend, co-ordinate, manage, promote and implement programs and activities associated with regional economic development in Quebec. The Ontario minister was given the power to interfere directly in Quebec's regional development. Not only could he do so directly, but bills like those concerning the Department of Industry, the Federal Office of Regional Development and the Federal Bank contained provisions giving him the right to bypass Quebec and deal directly with stakeholders, even at the level of school boards and municipalities.

I would like to know where our colleague, the member for Bonaventure-îles-de-la-Madeleine, was when Quebec underwent a major decentralization as the result of a political choice. Let me remind him of the extensive consultations undertaken so that all the regions could participate in the development of strategic plans. In Quebec, each region has prepared strategic plans for its regional development, that way we can be certain that all regions actually do develop.

Why? Because traditionally the regional development coming from Ottawa had a tendency to be focused on the central regions. In the last decade of the ERDA, over 40 per cent of the money was invested in the Montreal and Quebec City areas, that is to say in the central regions, the reasoning being that if these regions developed, the others would benefit also. But the reverse happened. Development left the regions for the central areas.

It was always that way, because in the minds of regional development officials in Ottawa, a province is a region, it is as simple as that. In Quebec, however, we know full well, in the area of regional development, that we have five administrative regions and 95 regional county municipalities working together to channel development according to social, economic and cultural priorities. This government has always refused to acknowledge the expertise that Quebec acquired in the area of regional development.

How can the government say it has a regional development strategy when it refuses to even consider the strategies developed by the various regions of Quebec in their strategic plans.

It is not we who pushed the idea all the way to the regional secretariat, it was Minister Picotte himself, then in the Liberal Bourassa government, who said: "The regional partnership structure will extend to strategic plans, to ensure that all government departments that inject money into the regions do so in accordance with regional development plans". That is what development partnership is all about, but the federal government refused to listen.

As evidence of this, I just want to point out something, because I heard my colleague from Outremont, who deals with regional development, say that Quebec refused to sign some agreements. Speaking of agreements, I would like to remind him-I just want to relate this little anecdote because it is priceless-that we signed a regional development agreement in the summer of 1994, but that the federal government refused to sign it, using the political context as an excuse and arguing that it had just signed during that same week an agreement in another area of jurisdiction. It said that two agreements were too much.

When my colleague from Outremont says that Quebec did not want to sign, it did so according to some very clear directions. I recall very clearly that Minister Chevrette, who was responsible for regional development, and his colleague, Louise Beaudoin, of Intergovernmental Affairs, had told the government that they wanted to sign the agreement providing its implementation were

deferred by one year. They wanted all regional development policies in this agreement to fit in with regional development, regional secretariats and regional development agreements.

At that time, the finance minister and his officials rejected the agreement. If it is not signed today, it is simply because the federal government does not want to recognize Quebec's jurisdiction and continues to clearly demonstrate its determination to centralize and to subject Quebec's regional development to national standards as part of a national blueprint that does not take into account Quebec's strategic plans and the prime objectives of regional development.

That is what this government is doing in terms of regional development. All federal legislation uses this wording that gives the minister the right to bypass the regions and the Quebec government and deal directly with stakeholders.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is: the hon. member for Frontenac-food inspection.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a comment and then I will ask a question of the hon. Bloc member with respect to the motion before us today as presented by the Bloc.

I take exception to the first sentence which condemns the federal government because of its reprehensible policies which in large measure are responsible for increasing poverty in the province of Quebec. What increases poverty in any province? What increases the lack of opportunity and the lack of growth in any province? It always starts with the people who live there. It starts with the municipal level of government, then the provincial and then the federal government comes into play.

With the exception of the Canada health and social transfer, the CHST, which the federal government has reduced and which Bloc members could argue is the reason there has been less money going to Quebec in that program, other than that everything else that is happening in the province of Quebec that is going downhill is the responsibility of two parties, the PQ and the BQ.

When I came here three years ago the PQ was running a deficit of about $4 billion. Within a 5 per cent margin, even under Bouchard it is still running a deficit of $4 billion. When every other province and every other level of government are reducing deficits, that provincial government did not make substantial reductions in its deficit. It was not in the billions of dollars. Maybe it was in the hundreds of millions.

Now the premier has to negotiate with the unions to get them to agree that there will be a balanced budget by the year 2000. It is all to come. It is all promises. Nothing is actual. Nothing is factual. He is in real trouble.

The BQ has done nothing in the House to admit that fact. It said it was coming here for one term and not running again. Now it is running again. It came here to say let's separate. The majority of people in Quebec voted no to separation. They voted no to getting out of the union. They want to stay in Canada, yet there will be a third referendum.

The BQ is responsible for the poverty in the province of Quebec. Because of the uncertainty, because of the unstable economic climate, a number of companies have moved from the city of Montreal which used to be a great city.

I grew up just outside Ottawa. I used to be proud to visit the big city of Montreal. I thought at that time that it was so much bigger than Ottawa, so much more beautiful than Ottawa. It is still a beautiful city but unfortunately when I go down streets now I see barricades in front of office buildings. I see graffiti written on the walls of office buildings in downtown Montreal off rue Sainte-Catherine. It is embarrassing.

I am a proud Canadian. I love the province of Quebec. I saw it every day of my life when I was growing up by looking across the river. Here we have a party that will not admit the fight is over. It came here. It had its shot and lost.

Bloc members say they believe in democracy. They say they believe in the will of the people. Why do they not accept the will of Quebecers who say they want to stay in Canada?

That uncertainty is creating instability. That political blindness is hurting a province that could do a lot better by getting its economic house in order and not crying for regional development funds that only go more or less into high risk ventures, which would mean subsidizing failure. I say to the hon. member across the way in the Liberal Party that is why I do not believe in regional development programs. They do not go into infrastructure. They go into failed high risk ventures.

It is the member's party and the PQ that are responsible for the poverty in Quebec.

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

How much time do I have left to answer, Madam Speaker?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

You have 30 seconds remaining.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to invite the hon. member to travel not only to Montreal, but also to other, more remote and typical, regions of Quebec. But it is hard to get a feel for the situation from a distance.

I think that, by coming to Ottawa, the Bloc Quebecois has been able to make all English Canadians from the other provinces aware of what is really going on in Quebec. The democratic will of the people was expressed in the last referendum, and might I remind you 49.4 per cent voted yes. That is not insignificant. It is almost a tie. I think, therefore, that many Quebecers have exercised their democratic right to express their opinion.

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

Madam Speaker, we were initially supposed to complete this debate at 5.20 p.m. but, because of the ministerial statement, I would like to ask the consent of the House to go to 5.25 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on regional development during this opposition day, because I represent a region which has been a testing ground for the ineffectiveness of Canadian federalism.

In eastern Quebec, people are sovereignist because they are francophone and they believe in the future of Quebec's francophone population, but they are also sovereignist because they believe that, to ensure our development, we must have control over our future.

We had a taste of every possible federalist recipe. We went from the eastern plan, to the Quebec planning bBureau, to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, to ad hoc activities, and now to the Federal Office of Regional Development, whose officials are doing their best. Under the Conservatives, the FORD was used, to some extent, to divert activities from the Department of Industry.

Once the Liberals came to office, they kept the FORD, but they did not give it any money. And then they came up with IDÉE-PME. It is a bit like a telephone booth: it gives an opportunity to access other federal departments. People working in the regions do their best with what they have. Every public servant does his best.

The problem with regional development is not related to individuals, but to the architecture. Regional development is one area where Canada's architectural problems are truly noticeable, and we are not talking minor problems. Since we, Bloc members, arrived here in Ottawa, we have also noticed that there are some very important sectors related to regional development, including the transportation sector.

For a long time, it was believed in Quebec that the transportation sector only dealt with highways. People were not very familiar with air, marine and railway transportation. For a long time, people thought of railways as rather quaint. Since we, in the Bloc Quebecois, have been here, we have told Quebecers how important these areas are, how we should have control over them in order to ensure appropriate regional development.

When you go over all the areas where Quebecers were let down in terms of regional development, you think about the 10,000 Canada Post jobs that were lost and the dumping of some regional harbours and airports. Quebecers have been saying for at least 20 years that if the federal does not want to maintain the harbours it should transfer them to us. It took one year to develop a policy and for the last year the department has been trying to revise it in order to give something to someone.

We have yet to reach an agreement. However, regional authorities have not remained idle. For instance, the Cacouna port authorities have made some strong representations and they have kept at it. They want results, but the federal government is too slow. With the economic situation changing ever so quickly, we cannot have governments unable to react rapidly.

Since we are part of NAFTA, we have to ensure that our regions can quickly export their goods and that we have the appropriate transportation means to do so. We cannot wait 10 or 15 years, these things must be done very quickly. Will someone on the government side address the issue of regional development, since they have undertaken the most harmful reform for the regions we have ever seen, the employment-insurance reform?

We know that this reform required two years of consultation and that, two months after its implementation on January 1, 1997, the government has already made changes because it realized that the arguments invoked by the opposition throughout the reform period were valid.

It was true that people who had accumulated five or six hours in a week would be penalized if no way could be found to ensure that this did not reduce the number of weeks of benefits. There will be other such changes in the months and years to come. For example, asking young workers to accumulate 910 hours adversely affects regional development because those who cannot do so will simply move elsewhere. And once they settle elsewhere, it is unlikely they will move back home, which is not good for regional development.

The people in government are not worse than their predecessors. The problem with regional development in Canada is not caused by individuals. All governments try to do their best. But they try to be good plumbers when architects are what is really needed.

If there is a sector that will help us to convince people that sovereignty is the solution for Quebec, it is regional development. I challenge any of the government members in the next election to try and convince us that the actions of the federal government helped in any way to reduce the gap between the unemployment rates in Quebec and those in the rest of Canada.

You can rest assured, especially in eastern Quebec, where we lost a seat because of the inaction of the member for Bonaventure-

[An hon. member]

Exactly.

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

-that they will learn their lesson next time, when there will be only four ridings in eastern Quebec, but these four ridings will vote for the Bloc Quebecois.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

It being5.25 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

Is the house ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

I declare the motion lost.