Dennis Mills

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, June 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is the end of the week and I am sitting here listening to members from the Bloc talking about an issue that they will not even have to deal with two years from now. If they win or lose the election, they all said they are going to quit and go back to their roots.

I want to ask a very specific question because the member talked in his speech about how much he cared about the economy and about putting people back to work.

He mentioned during his speech a couple of times, not just the economy of Quebec but the economy of Canada, and I was struck by the sensitivity to the whole country and not just Quebec.

As he knows, we had a Moody's downgrading yesterday afternoon. We are hearing from many people that the uncertainty with regard to the issue of separation in Quebec is one of the factors that is causing the jitters in our economy.

Does the member not think it would be much more productive, in trying to put his constituents back to work, all of the people who are out of work in the province of Quebec and in every region, to talk about building Canada rather than trying to destroy it?

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would not want the hon. member to think that I was whining. I was merely trying to point out to the member and to members of the Bloc that the province of Quebec has benefited by being part of Confederation.

I can say that James Bay has received hundreds of millions of dollars from the national government, from environment and from Canada Mortgage and Housing for every aspect of that project. If you do not believe me go to the Library of Parliament and they will produce the records dollar for dollar for you.

There is no resentment for that. This is part of Confederation. All we are saying is do not pretend that the national government has done nothing for the province of Quebec. My goodness, that is an insult to all the elected members who come from Quebec.

Look at the 16-year period of Pierre Elliott Trudeau when the Liberals had 74 out of 75 members and see all the great things that happened in the province of Quebec.

The difference was that those members of Parliament believed in Canada. If this group over here would start believing in Canada maybe then we could get our economy going a little better and maybe we could put even more money into the province of Quebec. That is how we would get more Quebecers back to work.

Throw away this idea of destroying the country and get back to reality. You will never be able to build a strong economy by ignoring the fact that a great deal of the reason we are rated number one in the world today as a nation to live in is because historically we have all worked together. The minute that we destroy that reality of Canada, it is not just your constituents who are going to suffer, it is mine and everyone else's in this country.

That is why I become very emotional about my country. I believe and I am going to continue to preach the fact that when you are in this House of Commons you should be building Canada, you should not be here trying to destroy it.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I did not realize that I had five minutes left on my remarks. I will take that time to review some of the points that I made in my speech before question period began.

As I said, the opposition motion today tried to discredit the Government of Canada as not having effective regional development plans or programs or instruments. Those people in every region of Canada know that we have always had decentralized instruments to help deal with very sensitive and diverse regional business opportunities.

The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has been dealing with the problem of regional development expansion for the last number of years. In the province of Ontario we have the FedNor, which has been designed to look after northern Ontario opportunities, western Canada diversification and FORD-Q in the province of Quebec.

For the Bloc Quebecois to put forward an opposition motion today that would suggest that we are not governing in a decentralized way is not accurate.

The real point of the Bloc's motion today has to do with the fact that it does not believe the Government of Canada should have people speaking for Canada in the province of Quebec. It does not believe in having a Government of Canada presence active on the ground in Quebec.

Of course none of us on the government side of the House shares that position. Imagine a situation in which it is saying, have the Government of Canada send a cheque because they in the province of Quebec know how to spend that cheque best.

We have had experiences in the province of Quebec in the past in which it has not been interested in the national position or the national view. Normally the province of Quebec or for that matter the province of Ontario are just basically speaking for provincial matters. When we are in the national government position we have to balance our view.

As a national parliamentarian coming from Toronto I do not just stand here and speak for Toronto. We do not just stand here and say that the only part of the country we are concerned about is Ontario. The proof in the pudding on that has to do with the entitlements that were granted before the budget in January when under the Constitution of Canada the new formula for entitlements was announced by the Minister of Finance in which the have provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario will transfer to the province of Quebec $70 billion over the next five years.

If a person were just interested in the province of Ontario do you think that the provincial members would say they have to send cheques off to the province of Quebec? That would not happen.

The purpose of this Chamber is to make sure that the regional disadvantages and the regional diversity are looked after by a strong national government, so stronger provinces make sure that provinces that go through weaker periods from time to time share in the wealth of the whole nation.

I resent the opposition motion today because it really is not a motion that speaks about how we build a stronger Canada. It is not a motion that is sincere because it is coming from a party that basically wants to destroy the country. I do not want any part of it.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the members opposite talk about jobs. They are not fooling the people of Quebec. I have a tough time saying Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. It is an oxymoron with this crowd. Her Majesty's disloyal opposition is what they should be called.

When you think about the fact that these people are parading around the world-

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

This traitor to Brian Mulroney talks about jobs. Do you know how you get jobs? You get jobs by trying to build this country, not by trying to destroy it. That is how you do it.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is not as if we are standing on this side of the House saying that we have a perfect system but it is very tough to work with an opposition that really does not have any intention to constructively criticize or improve the fabric of Canada. It sits there day after day working away at trying to destroy the fabric of Canada.

I believe that in the very near future it will probably be living up to its leader's commitment that if it loses in the provincial election its members will all be resigning.

The debate today is really not about our regional development programs and their effectiveness because we have regional development programs in every region of this country. They are working. They can always be improved.

The debate today is really about who speaks for Canada and the Bloc Quebecois really has always had a resentment for the Government of Canada presence in the province of Quebec.

I believe that most Quebecers will realize when they look at the contributions of Health and Welfare Canada, Communications Canada, Industry Canada, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, when they look at all the money that has been poured into Hydro Quebec to help develop James Bay, when they look at all the money that has been put into training programs, when they look at the fact they received $1 billion more in the last year just in terms of unemployment insurance and trading entitlements, I believe-

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois always comes up with this line that it is its money. It is not; the Minister of Finance announced in January under the equalization entitlements a further $70 billion going to Quebec from Ontario, B.C. and Alberta. It just came off $60 billion from the last five years.

Those members do not tell their constituents that between the last five and the next five years from the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario we have transferred $110 billion. Almost one-third of the national debt is because of the province of Quebec equalization entitlements.

We do not resent that because that is part of our constitutional responsibility. What really bothers me is that in spite of our living up to our responsibilities in Confederation these people still want to come to this national Parliament and try to destroy the country. Canadians have lost patience with the Bloc Quebecois and I believe that eventually even in the province of Quebec there will be many people who will say that if they reflect over

history and talk about caring and sharing, Canada has really been a good package for the people of Quebec.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

It is not your money.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very sad day for our country when people come to this boardroom not to build it, not to improve and not to look out for the unemployed in their ridings, but they know because they are not stupid people-you do not get elected here by being stupid-that this destabilizing talk that they are going through right now is costing jobs right across the country. It is destabilizing our economy.

When they talk about regional and economic development there is not a province in Canada that has had the benefit of the national treasury like the province of Quebec.

[Supply, June 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to participate in the debate today because I believe that this debate is really about who speaks for Canada.

I do not believe that we will ever resolve the debate with the Bloc Quebecois because it does not believe in Canada. It is separatist. It will not recognize any federal presence, Government of Canada presence, in the province of Quebec. As long as it has that position of trying to destroy Canada then this debate is not going to go very far.

The fact of the matter is that we are a national government here in Ottawa but we are supervising one of the most decentralized national governments in the world. Many members of Parliament today gave very specific examples.

We have a decentralized instrument in Atlantic Canada called the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency which is a Government of Canada instrument on the ground working with the

provinces and the municipalities. That unit is very sensitive to the diverse needs of Atlantic Canada.

As we become more and more dependent on the new economy and the new technologies, the Government of Canada presence is there to support those new emerging small and medium sized businesses. That instrument is in place.

In western Canada we have the western Canada diversification fund which is also a decentralized Government of Canada instrument working on the ground in every province in western Canada trying to be ultra sensitive to the needs of not just the region but of every province in the western region.

In the province of Ontario we have FedNor, an instrument in northern Ontario which is very sensitive because we are talking about industries which have very difficult times because of shipping distances and because we are going through a conversion in the north. We are moving into new industries there because our resource based industries can no longer sustain us. However, the Government of Canada has a presence there. The federal Government of Canada works with FedNor and with the municipalities and the province of Ontario trying to be sensitive to the needs of northern Ontario.

In the province of Quebec we have the Federal Office for Regional Development called FORD-Q. There are hundreds of examples of where FORD-Q is working in a decentralized way in every region of the province of Quebec, trying to make sure that the very issues of concern that the Bloc Quebecois is talking about today are addressed.

The problem is that the Bloc Quebecois refuses to tell its constituents that there is a Government of Canada presence working on the ground in its region, getting policy direction from the national government in Ottawa, on the ground operating in Quebec in a very decentralized way. The fact of the matter is the Bloc members will not recognize these decentralized instruments because they are not interested in building Canada. They are interested in destroying Canada.

The thing that is beginning to really bother me about the Bloc Quebecois members is they now know that their separatist thrust is destabilizing the economy of the country. As they destabilize the economy of the country they are putting pressure on our interest rates. That cost to the national treasury is a heck of a lot more than some of the duplication examples that they gave here today.

I would be the first person to admit that our system is not perfect. There are examples, not just in Quebec but in every region of this country, in which we can show that there might have been some waste here or that there might have been a duplication there. That is no excuse for giving up on Canada. That is no excuse for saying I want to separate from Canada. If they really believe in putting people back to work in their constituencies the same way that we in every other region of the country want to put our people back to work, then they would stop this notre chez nous.

Let us get real. We are dealing with the lives of millions of people here. We are no longer dealing simply with the lives of the people in the province of Quebec. We are dealing with the lives and the jobs of people from coast to coast in this country. This separatist let us kill Canada approach is really not in the best interests.

They laugh. This is a member of Parliament who served for 10 years in the Mulroney government, an ex-Mulroneyite sitting now with the Bloc. Their leader, another ex-Mulroneyite, is an incredible example.