Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

[Access To Information Act, December 1st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour for me to represent the people of Jonquière, who elected me in the last election and expect greater transparency in their government institutions.

I am pleased, therefore, to inform you that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of Bill C-216, an Act to amend the Access to Information Act, presented by my colleague for Nanaimo—Alberni.

This bill is aimed at broadening application of the Access to Information Act to include crown corporations as defined by the Financial Administration Act, making them more accessible to the people of Quebec and of Canada, and requiring them to be answerable for their administration.

The Bloc Quebecois cannot do otherwise than to approve this bill, in the name of democratic principles, the taxpayer's right to know, and our desire to see greater transparency in the administration of public affairs.

I will remind my colleagues in this House that the Access to Information Act was passed in 1982 and implemented the following year. This act obliged governmental institutions to give access to their documents.

I will pass over the exceptions to access to information in order to address our primary concern, which is the fact that a number of crown corporations are not subject to this act. On numerous occasions during the 35th Parliament, the Bloc Quebecois has spoken out on having the Access to Information Act apply to all publicly funded government institutions.

For those of you who were in this House during the previous Parliament, I will remind you that the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques tabled a motion, Motion No. 260 to be precise, which read as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should make all Crown corporations subject to the Privacy Act.

I would remind you, to guide us in our reflection on Bill C-216, that all of the arguments around Motion No. 260 focused on broadening the scope of the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act.

Each of us can take the statement of principle adopted by the House as an invitation to move to another stage in amending the Access to Information Act. The Bloc Quebecois is not the only one to argue for broadening of the Access to Information Act. We can go back as far as 1987, when the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General recommended that crown corporations be more accountable.

The committee recommended that the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act be extended to include crown corporations and wholly owned subsidiaries that appear in the Treasury Board's annual report to Parliament on crown corporations and joint ventures.

In principle, the committee wanted the Access to Information Act to be applied to crown corporations in which the government had controlling interest and which provided the public with goods and services on a commercial or semi-commercial basis.

The committee's recommendations are unequivocal. The commercial nature of certain corporations is no reason to exclude them from the provisions of the bill before us. In fact, the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General felt that the legitimate secrets of these corporations would be properly protected by the various exceptions provided by the Access to Information Act.

In this regard, sections 18 and 20, which concern issues relating to Canada's economic interests and disclosure of trade secrets, provide for such exceptions. I do not agree with the viewpoint we will no doubt hear expressed on this sort of argument, which I consider without merit.

We will recall that John Grace, the commissioner of information in 1993-94, recommended extending the Access to Information Act to cover all federal institutions, including crown corporations.

What is more, the crown corporations are covered by the Official Languages Act since its enactment in 1969. In addition, subsidiaries established under federal law, which are the exclusive property of crown corporations, come under the Financial Administration Act since its amendment in 1984. So, there are precedents for Bill C-216.

A number of questions have been raised regarding the Canada Post Corporation's operations and its funding. There is a flagrant lack of transparency. Many Canadians and Quebeckers think that the government should be more actively involved in supervising Canada Post in the public interest.

Extending the Access to Information Act to Canada Post would allow us, parliamentarians, to make the corporation accountable for its overall administration, about which we hardly know anything. And this is but one instance where parliamentarians have very little information to work from in answering the numerous inquiries from their constituents.

All in all, 15 years after its coming into effect, it is high time for the government to broaden the scope of the Access to Information Act as provided for in Bill C-216.

Many taxpayers wonder about the enormous salaries paid to crown corporation executives, as social programs are being slashed. No wonder they are sceptical.

Too many Quebeckers and Canadians are disillusioned by federal institutions, public administration and politicians. The time has come to change tack and show our commitment to the democratic values of our society. A relationship of trust must be restored between governments and the public, and I sincerely believe that passing the bill before us would be a positive step in this direction.

I therefore ask my hon. colleagues in the House of Commons to carefully consider the merits of the proposed amendments and support this bill aimed at broadening the Access to Information Act to include crown corporations.

[Canadian Federalism, November 28th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, we are supposedly living in an brand new Canada that bears no relation with the centralizing and domineering Canada of old. As evidence of that, we are often told that the issues relating to forestry, tourism, mining and social housing have been settled.

However, in the last 60 days, the Liberal government announced that it will develop a plan to ensure Canadians get appropriate education. It also announced programs that will deal with young people, health, rural communities, school adjustment, not to mention the social union, and centralizing bills such as the legislation on drinking water.

In spite of the rhetoric, the Liberal government's attitude remains the same. It is more centralizing and domineering than ever. When the federal government takes a step forward, provincial governments take a step backward. The only way for Quebeckers to move forward is to achieve sovereignty and they will do so.

[Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak again on Bill C-7, an act to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

This bill is of particular interest to me, because I come from the Saguenay and I grew up in this very special environment, which is the envy of many tourists who come to our beautiful area.

I look forward to welcoming an increasing number of tourists who will come visit us once the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park is established. The establishment of this new park confirms the significance of this resort area, where people can admire one of the most magnificent features of Quebec's landscape, the Saguenay fjord, where a mighty river flows.

We have waited a long time for this bill. The idea of a marine park was first introduced twelve years ago. In 1988, Canada and Quebec agreed to join forces to discuss the establishment of a marine park.

Better late than ever, we could all say. Nevertheless, without all these overlapping areas of federal and provincial jurisdiction, Quebec, as a sovereign nation, would surely have launched this project in a more timely manner. Anyway, as good citizens, we must act within the rigid federal system and make the most of it.

Therefore, I must recognize again, as I did in the speech I gave on this bill on November 4, that under the agreement concerning the required legislative or regulatory measures to be passed, both levels of government, which signed the deal on April 6, 1990, agreed for once to act within their jurisdiction.

Several members of this House have pointed out the exemplary character of this co-operation between the Governments of Canada and of Quebec. I can well understand why the members opposite would stress this, given the fact that the Liberal government is constantly trying to control every attempt by the Quebec to assert itself as a nation.

We all remember that this unique project came from the grassroots and finally made it to our legislative institutions. For once, useless duplication and overlap are being avoided by sharing existing and future facilities, infrastructure and equipment in the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park.

Local and regional communities that have actively cooperated in creating this marine park are being called upon to become closely involved in its management. As members of the coordinating committee, representatives of local and regional communities will be able to closely follow the implementation of the master plan for the marine park.

Again, my concern is that this coordinating committee will only be an advisory committee and as such will not have the impact it should have on the management of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park. I have already expressed this concern, and I call on each of these representatives to be very careful in ensuring that protection of marine resources will be in keeping with the spirit of Bill C-7 that we will be adopting shortly.

In addition, as the member for that beautiful region, I am especially concerned about the employment situation. I believe that job creation and environmental protection are not incompatible. There has to be a balance.

In this respect, I would like to point out that the federal government has up to now concentrated all its investments in this area on the sites which it owns, namely wharfs and the shoreline. I believe that as an extension of this legislation, the federal government should demonstrate its good faith and provide the necessary funds for the construction of the highway between Baie-Sainte-Catherine and Petit-Saguenay, a highway that the population has been demanding for 25 years.

This new highway will be a big help in attracting more visitors to the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park. Today, a great number of tourists follow the river and take the ferry between Baie-Sainte-Catherine and Tadoussac without going inland along the Saguenay fjord.

I therefore call on the Liberal government to take immediate action to meet this important need for infrastructure so that the park can become an engine for the development of the tourism industry in our region.

I do not have to remind you of the record high unemployment rates in our area over the last several years. This initiative is a way of returning to the region the taxes paid by the local people and of alleviating the cuts in employment insurance that have hurt so many of them.

I would like to add that the situation is the same in the case of the wharfs at Anse-Saint-Jean and Petit-Saguenay; these belong to the federal government and are in urgent need of investments. You will remember that there was a fire a few years ago at the wharf in Anse-Saint-Jean. It is in a terrible state.

So the time has come for the government to invest in all this infrastructure in support of the goodwill expressed with the passing of Bill C-7.

Before I finish, I would like to take a few minutes to give you an overview of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park and a sense of the excitement all tourists share when they come to look at this exceptional site and all its wealth.

The park is part of two major geological formations. The Saguenay fjord and the north shore of the St. Lawrence belong to the old basement of the Canadian Shield made up of crystalline rocks from 600 million to 4 billion years old. Four billion years; it gives one pause for reflection. Mankind is pretty insignificant, when all is said and done.

The Logan fault, which more or less follows the St. Lawrence valley, is a major nonconformity separating the rock formations of the Canadian Shield and the Appalachians. The Saguenay fjord is a deep gash in the Canadian Shield, a series of fault lines in the earth's crust. All these faults and breaks in the earth's crust led to the breakdown of part of the continental shelf.

A series of glaciations carved out the entire St. Lawrence River system as we now know it. The Saguenay River has the peculiarity of being a freshwater river, fed by Lac Saint-Jean, and a saltwater river, fed by the tide waters of the St. Lawrence. The uniqueness of this ecosystem has led to the presence, in the Saguenay River, of species of flora and fauna that may be found nowhere else. So it is easy to understand why this region is of such interest to the scientific community.

In fact, the marine park is in an extremely diversified and rich environment. The aquatic wildlife found in this park includes several species of plankton, some of which are plants while others are animals. This underwater vegetation provide a habitat for many kinds of fish.

And to make things more interesting, we also find two species of aquatic mammals, the beluga and the common seal. This explains why so many visitors are overhelmed by the exceptional beauty of the region and its many assets.

Furthermore, I would be remiss if I did not point out that this is an extremely significant region in the history of North America, because it is here that Aboriginal and European civilizations converged. For thousands of years, the confluence of the Saguenay and St. Lawrence rivers has been a centre of human activity seeking to benefit from this exceptional marine environment.

Today, the mouth of the Saguenay is once again becoming a centre for encountering and discovering marine life. Like the explorers and hunters of past civilizations, present-day visitors can experience the great sensations that contact with marine mammals can provide. In returning to its roots, our society is rediscovering its love of the sea and retracing its history. This is the great challenge the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park has in store for us.

To conclude, I wish to thank the numerous local organizations, local and regional communities, environmental groups and native peoples involved and the scientific community for supporting the establishment of this marine park.

I especially wish to thank Gérard-Raymond Morin, the MNA for Dubuc, and his predecessor, Hubert Desbien, who have always promoted with courage and determination this huge tourist project, which will be a driving force for the economy of our region.

I invite each of you who are about to adopt Bill C-7 to come and enjoy the beauty of the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park and to discover its rich fauna.

[Canada Post Corporation, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the threat of privatization is hanging over Canada Post like a dark cloud.

If the government has nothing to hide regarding this issue, will the minister tell us when he will release the full report prepared by TD Securities on Canada Post, in April?

[Canada Post Corporation, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation.

In spite of the minister's untimely statements that special legislation would be passed in case of a strike, it seems that the two sides are still negotiating and might reach a settlement in the next few days.

Can the minister tell us about the progress made and will he reaffirm his commitment not to get involved in the postal conflict and let the two sides negotiate in good faith?

[Telecommunications Act, November 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Louis-Hébert on her speech this morning.

All the questions she raised on this bill are topical. Those interested parties we met and the public all said so. Her questioning meets the expectations of the general public. I hope the Minister of Industry listened attentively to the questions raised by the member for Louis-Hébert.

I would like to ask her about the importance and the scope of this institution in her opinion.

[Cultural Grants Acknowledgement Act, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today on Bill C-204, introduced by my hon. colleague, the Reform member for Kootenay—Columbia, the short title of which is the cultural grants acknowledgement act.

Its object as stated in the summary is, and I quote:

—[to require] recipients of grants of public funds for cultural projects to acknowledge that a grant has been made and to specify the amount of the grant at the time the program is announced or advertised and opened to the public—

More precisely, this is a bill which is aimed at making cultural organizations and artists publicize the funding they receive from the federal government.

I find this a reasonable idea. People who receive a grant ought to mention it; that would be a normal thing to do. Where I disagree is that we should have to pass legislation requiring this. As representatives of the people, as lawmakers, it is our role to solve problems affecting society and to see that public affairs are properly administered. We do not have to pass legislation on everything, endlessly multiplying the number of acts and regulations.

Before considering the bill, we must ask ourselves whether there is a problem in terms of publicizing the fact that a grant has been given, something which is far from obvious. One has to wonder whether the Department of Canadian Heritage, targeted by this bill, has serious difficulty in having its participation in artistic projects acknowledged.

This sort of problem has never been raised on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. We have not seen studies complaining of the Department of Canadian Heritage's lack of visibility. Would that cause a problem in the riding of the member for Kootenay—Columbia or in English Canada? If not, is the focus of this bill solely Quebec?

I would like to point out to my colleagues that this issue of acknowledging public funding is not a problem for artists. With the cuts to the cultural sector in recent years, the problem is often the lack of public funding.

In Quebec, even artists who are known sovereignists are not shy or ashamed to reveal the federal government's participation. For example, the credits of the film Octobre by federally blacklisted filmmaker Pierre Falardeau acknowledge the financial participation of Telefilm Canada in the film's production. It appears in big capital letters. The next line, also in big capital letters, reveals that the film is a coproduction with the National Film Board of Canada. That does not cause any problem.

Another example is Micheline Lachance's book entitled Le roman de Julie Papineau . This book gives a fictional account of the days of the Patriotes as seen through the eyes of Louis-Joseph Papineau's wife. It is mentioned at the beginning of the book that Les éditions Québec-Amérique are funded by the Canada Council's block grant program. Once again, this poses no problem.

The Reform members, and certain zealous federalists in the House, must be made to understand that, although these organizations contribute to Quebec's artistic production, the citizens of Quebec pay taxes, and Quebec and its culture are for now still part of Canada.

It would be natural for grants to be distributed equitably among artists, whatever their political persuasion, and works that are funded should reflect reality. The reality is that there is a people in Quebec and that a growing proportion of Quebec's citizens want this people to have a country.

In Quebec, there is no legislation like that being proposed today. Most organizations have guidelines and this is negotiated freely in collaboration with grant recipients. For example, Quebec's Conseil des arts et des lettres merely requires that recipients of grants display the Conseil's logo.

The Reform Party often complains of excessive government interference and too many regulations. Now it proposes a bill that seems to have no purpose. The only purpose of this bill is to increase the federal government's visibility so as to strengthen its central authority or national unity.

A closer look at the bill reveals that it gives the Minister of Canadian Heritage extensive powers of political control over the awarding and announcing of grants. Under the bill, recipients of grants would be required to submit a certificate of good conduct to the minister. The minister would have the power to decide the time and manner in which acknowledgement of grants must be made. If recipients refuse to comply with the minister's political will, the minister may retaliate by requiring the return of all or any of the grants received.

After years of progress in cleaning up politics in Quebec and in Canada, a return to an era of political patronage is out of the question, an era when artists would be subject to the whims of political power and hostages of interparty feuds. Giving such direct powers of retaliation and control over grants to the heritage minister is opening the door far too wide to arbitrary decisions.

The system for awarding cultural grants by federal bodies is intended to be a merit system, one which recognizes people's creative talents and not their political views or the values they espouse.

In English, this concept goes by the term arm's length, which would translate as something like out of the reach of the government. The reason artists are often judged by their peers or by juries of experts known more for their artistic sense and for what they know, rather than whom they know, is to ensure that the risk of political interference is minimal.

It is up to parliament to set the overall objectives of cultural policy. The government implements those objectives by funding cultural organizations. It ought not to go any further than this. The government must not interfere in the choice of artists or creators whom these organizations decide to fund.

One may disagree with certain choices of works or artists which are funded, I admit. Our criticisms, however, ought to focus on whether or not the cultural organizations are fulfilling their mission, and not on the personality or opinions of those receiving funding.

When there is an attempt, as with this bill, to subject culture to an ideology, experts sometimes talk of sovietizing culture. This refers to the absolute control exercised by the government of the former Soviet Union over means of communication such as radio, television, film, newspapers, books and plays. This approach is of no interest to either Canada or Quebec.

As members of Parliament, we should work to create laws that encourage creativity rather than control it or use it for political propaganda. Last year, the Minister of Foreign Affairs tried to get artists who were working abroad to promote national unity. When they refused, he realized his mistake and cancelled his directive.

This is what the member for Kootenay—Columbia should do as well. He should withdraw his bill and find positive ways to encourage artists rather than try to use them as pawns on his political chessboard.

[Pay Equity, November 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like once again to draw the attention of the President of the Treasury Board to the dissatisfaction of federal public servants regarding the settlement of the pay equity issue.

Revenue Canada has a major taxation centre in Jonquière. The employees of the centre have asked me to stress that they are upset about the government's delay in solving the issue. The Liberals were definitely more vocal when they formed the opposition.

I am asking the President of the Treasury Board to read each of the some 620 letters which I received and which I will send to him at the earliest opportunity.

All these employees question the $10 billion deficit reduction that the finance minister is bragging about. I join them in asking that the issue of pay equity be settled. It is high time these employees get their due.

[Search And Rescue Helicopters, November 5th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

The government will soon announce its decision regarding the purchase of 15 search and rescue helicopters, without having even debated the issue in Parliament.

Will the government do what it usually does when a difficult decision must be made and announce its choice of helicopters on Friday afternoon or next week, when Parliament will not be sitting?

[Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, November 4th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-7, an act to establish the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park. This bill holds a special interest for me as I represent the 70,000 people of the riding of Jonquière, which is adjacent to this unique park.

As my colleague for Rimouski—Mitis said, the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill. Indeed, more than seven years after the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec signed an agreement to establish a marine park where the Saguenay river enters the St. Lawrence estuary, the time has finally come to pass legislation establishing that park.

I remind you that this park will include a unique feature of Quebec geography, the Saguenay fjord, where a mighty river flows. As you know, this fjord opens onto the largest estuary in the world. This is a place blessed with a large variety of living organisms. There are several species of plankton and many species of fish, both fresh and salt water fish. This area offers excellent conditions for breeding and feeding, and it is also a staging and wintering area for a number of water fowls.

As you can see, this is a special environment that should be protected. This is the most beautiful site in our country to be.

The time to pass the marine park legislation has finally arrived. I say “finally” because the agreement was signed on April 6, 1990 and the local and regional communities, the environmental groups, the native peoples and the scientific community, who are all committed to improving the management and protection of the rich and varied marine resources of the area, had to wait seven years, I repeat seven years, before that agreement finally translated into something concrete.

We will recall that under this agreement both governments are committed, within their constitutional jurisdictions, to passing legislative or regulatory measures for the purpose of, and I quote:

(a) the creation of a marine park called “Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park” and located at the confluence of the Saguenay River and the northern half of the St. Lawrence Estuary;

(b) the conservation of the marine fauna and flora, as well as maintaining the integrity of ecosystems on this territory;

(c) the protection of the territory and its other resources;

(d) the development of these resources for present and future generations; and

(e) the appreciation of these resources by the public.

And I am not talking about the strong pressures exerted since the 1970s by local people—despite those in this House who would like to take the credit—for action to be taken in order to preserve the rich and diverse marine life in the Saguenay region. It did take the Canadian government some time to respond to the will that had been unanimously expressed for a long time by the local people.

The least we can say is that this project, which required several years of discussions and negotiations between Ottawa and Quebec City before coming to a successful conclusion, is hardly the best example of an efficient federalist system because of the long negotiations, even though the local people have agreed on this since the 1970s.

That being said, I would like to elaborate a little bit on some features of Bill C-7 which give it a unique character and which should be used as a model by the Canadian government in its future relations with the Government of Quebec.

So, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park will be the first salt water federal-provincial park, the first park created jointly by the two levels of government and for which Ottawa and Quebec agreed on their respective management roles. This is a unique agreement between the two governments and it was made possible because the federal government agreed to recognize the rights and jurisdiction of each level of government—and I insist on those words “agreed to recognize the rights and jurisdiction of each level of government”—without trying to make its own rights prevail over those of the Government of Quebec and the people it represents, which rights are just as legitimate.

This is an example the present government, its Prime Minister and its ministers would be well advised to follow in many other sensitive matters concerning the future of Quebec and Canada.

I have to stress another feature of Bill C-7 that reinforces its uniqueness: for the first time, the Government of Canada has agreed to participate in the establishment of a marine park without claiming in return the ownership on the seabed and the sub-soil and ground resources. Indeed, the Government of Quebec keeps its property right, but this right does not prevent the federal government from continuing to exercise its jurisdiction over navigation and fishing.

This is another fine example from which the Liberal government should draw inspiration in its relations with Quebec, and a model of respect for Quebec's territorial integrity that should guide the federal government in other discussions.

The federal government would have been really ill-advised to claim a greater jurisdiction than that recognized in the bill establishing the Saguenay—St. Lawrence marine park. Indeed, is it necessary to recall that, for 61 years, up until 1983, Quebec had assumed responsibility for the administration of the whole fishing sector?

That is a jurisdiction the federal government has encroached upon under the pretext that it would be easier to protect the resources of the Atlantic region from Ottawa. In the last 10 years, there has been little evidence to support the federal government's claim to be in a better position than Quebec to protect resources. Besides, the general collapse of the groundfish stocks is a direct consequence of the federal government's inability to assume its mandate to protect resources.

Another important part of this bill that is worth mentioning is the involvement of local representatives in the management of this new marine park. This bill confirms the mandate of the existing joint Canada-Quebec management committee and gives an important role to local stakeholders who, as members of the coordinating committee, will be in a position to monitor the implementation of the management plan.

The composition of the coordinating committee will be as follows: one representative from each of the three RCMs concerned on the north shore, namely Charlevoix-Est, the Saguenay Fjord and Haute-Côte-Nord; only one representative for the three RCMs concerned on the south shore, namely Kamouraska, Les Basques and Rivière-du-Loup; one representative from the scientific community; one for the groups dedicated to the conservation and preservation of resources, environmental education and nature interpretation; one from the Canadian heritage department; and one from the Quebec ministry of environment and wildlife.

These local representatives will have a very important role to play, for this bill is admittedly rather sketchy concerning the conservation ethics to be observed in managing the park. We have to refer to the management plan to learn more about the protection strategies that will be implemented.

Unfortunately, we must admit this is a flaw because it is always much easier to amend a management master plan than a law. So this master plan could be changed at any time in order to increase or reduce the protection of marine resources, in spite of all the good will expressed here today.

Moreover, clause 17 of this bill authorizes the governor in council to make regulations for the protection of marine resources, for the control of activities, for the issuance of permits and for prescribing the fines for offences.

As a consequence, I believe that the stakeholders will have to be very vigilant—I repeat, very vigilant—to ensure that the application of the management master plan is consistent with the spirit of Bill C-7, which we are about to pass.

There is one last point I wish to highlight, once again, as a source of inspiration for the federal government. It is the accord concluded by Quebec and Ottawa on how to finance the creation of the marine park and its annual operating costs.

The Sagueney-St. Lawrence Marine Park is already an internationally renowned tourist destination with an enormous tourist development potential that, if properly exploited, will contribute to the establishment of a sustainable tourist industry in our region, the Saguenay. I am pleased to see that, in this matter, the federal government is getting involved in regional development in Quebec without bypassing the provincial government, which is very much to its credit.

It is indeed worth mentioning since, during its first term, this Liberal government had shown us another kind of approach which was a lot less respectful of the Quebec governement's jurisdiction in the area of regional development.

When the Liberals took office in 1993, 62% of federal funding for regional development came under various agreements with the Quebec government. Now, four years later, that percentage has gone down to 33%.

This means that in more than two thirds of regional development matters in which the federal government is involved, it bypasses the Quebec government, often duplicating what is already being done.

Need I remind the members that, since the creation of the Federal Office of Regional Development, the Liberal government has been using this agency almost exclusively as a propaganda tool to increase its visibility in Quebec, hiding behind that agency to get directly involved in regional development in that province. And, unfortunately, it has been doing so without giving any consideration to the effectiveness of its interventions.

As a matter of fact, 90% of the Federal Office of Regional Development activities duplicate the Quebec government's activities and, according to some estimates, this duplication is costing taxpayers $20.7 million.

The fact that for once the government respected Quebec's jurisdiction over regional development, by signing an agreement with the province, can only be cause for rejoicing. But let us also hope that this approach will become the rule in future federal interventions in regional development in Quebec.

In conclusion, I urge my colleagues to cooperate so that Bill C-7, the Saguenay—St. Lawrence Marine Park Act, can be adopted as soon as possible.