Gaston Leroux

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address the House at third reading of Bill C-85 on reform of members' retiring allowances. I rise as the official opposition critic on parliamentary reform.

I would like to say right off that the objective that we in the Bloc Quebecois and the official opposition wished to achieve in the reform was twofold. First, because we shared the concern of all taxpayers in Quebec and Canada, we knew very well that a pension plan that allowed members to collect both pensions and federal civil service salaries could not continue. We also knew that the absence of a specific age limit for qualifying for a pension was unacceptable, because taxpayers were seeing people after just six years of parliamentary service getting an immediate pension at the age of 30 or 35 or 40. It was unacceptable. It was unfair.

So those aspects were our two targets, shared by the taxpayer, and I think that Bill C-85 is confirmation that both have been met.

However, I would like to recall that we tabled an amendment to this bill that was designed to prevent former members who were currently double dipping from continuing to do so. The government preferred not to incorporate our amendment. Instead, the restriction on double dipping will come into effect only when the bill becomes law, thus leaving plenty of government employees drawing both their pension and their salary. I am thinking, among others, of the ambassador to Paris, Benoît Bouchard, who gets both a pension and a salary.

I think it would have been very useful if the government had agreed to make the system fair for everyone immediately.

I would also like to add, in the course of these remarks, that in the end the total value of members' pensions strikes me as a small matter in comparison with a more useful way of recovering money and reducing government expenditure: the abolition of the Senate, the other House. If the $45 million and more that goes on salaries and services for the Senate could have been tackled, we could have saved an enormous amount of money.

One of the distinctive things about the western world is its democratic systems of government. Universal suffrage is indisputably the element in a revolution that at the start of this century allowed a number of western societies to achieve, rapidly, unprecedented economic development and to experience the emergence of the mass consumer society we know today.

However, western democratic society has not eliminated all inequalities, nor does it really hold the promise of a better world where all men and women would be equal, a society where poverty and misery would no longer occur. Social classes continue to exist, with their different levels of wealth, their injustices. We live in the very heart of economic liberalism. If democracy is a synonym for political freedom, it is also the home of economic freedom.

There are members of Parliament in our society, certainly, but there are also professionals, welfare recipients, people without jobs, CEOs of big and small companies, civil servants, tramps. We do not all have the same lot in life. We live in a society with social classes. And it is an illusion to think that everyone is treated equitably.

The debate on members' pensions, in my opinion, serves as a way of avoiding a much more fundamental debate that needs to be held on poverty and power. We have to expose the illusory democracy that screens us from the human misery in our societies. We have to attack the system's real profiteers. There are profiteers in the Canadian parliamentary system, and to focus exclusively on members' pensions, without calling among other things for abolition of the Senate, is serious political irrelevance and evidence of boundless bad faith.

The cost of the parliamentary pension plan is insignificant compared to what has to be paid out of the public purse to maintain Senate appointments and the institution itself.

One of the Reform Party's main election promises was to make cuts in what the party calls the "three Ps": members' pay, pensions and privileges. The Reform Party calculates that a significant reduction in members' pensions would result in savings on the order of $1.5 million over five years.

According to Jean Dion, columnist for Le Devoir , ``the savings that could be made by slashing members' benefits are hard to calculate''.

Following the last election, the pensions to be paid to defeated members were estimated at $109 million over 20 years, or a quarter of 1 per cent of the deficit for 1992-93 alone. Now, the total budget for senators is $42.6 million a year. Over 20 years, if you consider the costs of upkeep for the premises the Senate occupies, the cost to the taxpayer is, by comparison, more than $1 billion.

That is what I would call shameless exploitation of a country's citizens, who pay out of their taxes the salaries and pensions of people they never elected. A senator is a member of a political species that lives off the poor in our society. The Senate is nothing but a pretext for whatever government is currently in power to reward its cronies, be they Tory or Grit.

The Senate is an institution with no democratic legitimacy. Its members are appointed by the Governor General, who by convention acts on the initiative and advice of the Prime Minister, who submits a list of names to him. Because senators are not elected, the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, considers the Upper House a political anachronism and convincing proof of the obsolescence of the Canadian federal system.

We in the Bloc Quebecois have grasped that one of the great weaknesses of the Canadian parliamentary system is not the members' pension plan but rather the very existence of a Senate. The existence of the Canadian Senate is a vestige of the traditional elitist form of representation that is supposed in some way to balance the democratic legitimacy of the elected members of the House of Commons.

From 1925 to 1963, the average age of a senator was 69. In 1975 it was 64. A Senate seat, as the whole world knows, is a prize for someone at the end of his career. He will not need to fight to keep his seat, because the salary is guaranteed until he reaches 75. That is what I call a golden retirement. That is what I call the real problem. That is the real scandal of the Canadian parliamentary system and the democratic system in which it has developed.

I think that the government in power, the Liberals, and the Reform Party too, should have gone after the really pointless expenditures. Lacking the courage to attack the Senate, which represents a pointless expenditure, they referred instead to cut members' pensions. We recognize that they accomplished what they set out to do, and that it is an improvement, but as I have shown, the money they hope to recover is just a little more than a million dollars over twenty years.

If we got rid of the Senate, we could save over $42 million a year. The goal of reviewing sessional allowances or members' pensions can never, in any way, be a means of putting the country's finances on a sounder footing, or fighting the deficit, or achieving the great collective ideals of equality and wealth in our sacrosanct democracy. This debate is just something to placate the people, and bills making changes to members' retiring allowances-remember Bill C-270, brought in by the NDP, Bill C-236, brought in by the Liberals, Bill C-208, brought in by the Conservatives-are just ways for this House to assuage its conscience.

On July 20, 1994, the Commission to Review Allowances of Members of Parliament tabled its report. It made the following points: the number of former members receiving a pension is not what is commonly believed. To go by the press, every parliamentarian who ceases to sit gets a retiring allowance. But in fact only half of the members who retired over the past decade received an allowance. Since 1984, only 42 per cent of retirees have received an allowance.

The report goes on to state that the public sometimes has the impression that parliamentarians who retire do so with an excessively large pension.

In fact, most pensions paid to parliamentarians in the past decade were between $10,000 and $40,000. Actually, 57.2 per cent of them are below $30,000 and 90.4 per cent are below $50,000.

"One might also think, the report goes on to say, that a disproportionate percentage of retirement benefits are paid to persons below the age of 55. But this is absolutely not the case since only 13 per cent of retired MPs receiving benefits are below 55".

According to the report, the Canadian parliamentary pension plan is quite comparable to those in other western democracies. Admittedly, this plan is one of the least demanding with regard to the minimum age at which benefits can be collected, but one of the strictest with regard to the contribution rate of the beneficiary; and it falls within the average with regard to the maximum authorized benefit.

As can be gathered from the report of the Commission to Review Allowances of Members, there is no reason to hold a real debate on the matter and it is no secret that the parliamentary discussions about MP pensions are merely a way of avoiding the real debate on the fundamental questions which are increasingly undermining the credibility of western democracies.

The Reform Party lays it on a bit thick. The great number of amendments which they tabled at the beginning of June look more like an insurance policy negotiated downward than an effort to prepare a serious piece of legislation.

I repeat, Bill C-85 on the reform of MP pensions in its present version responds entirely to the two main concerns of taxpayers in Quebec and in Canada with regard to equity.

First, the age at which a former MP can collect his pension is now set at 55. Secondly, a former MP can no longer receive both a pension and a salary paid by a government agency. The bill is unequivocal in that regard.

With this bill we have therefore attained the basic objectives which we have in common with taxpayers, but we would have liked the government to accept our amendment and apply it immediately to those in government and in the public service who currently benefit from double dipping.

I remind this House that we would also have preferred to deal effectively with the expenses of useless institutions like the Senate, which costs us tens of millions of dollars per year. All this for an institution which serves no useful purpose. It is simply a place-and the real place-for a golden retirement. A place to which men and women who have rendered or could render services to the government are appointed with a salary which is guaranteed until age 75. That is what I call an unacceptable golden retirement and that is where we have to get the money that is needed.

In closing, I remind this House that in this matter the official opposition is concerned about equity. We fundamentally believe that our amendments contained all that is needed to achieve this equity, namely two basic elements: the setting of the minimum age at 55 years and the elimination of double dipping.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada Act, June 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to say that I totally agree with what my friend from the Reform Party said about committee proceedings. In committee there are ideas exchanged, some serious work done. However, we get the impression that, in spite of all

the work that is done, when the government wants to impose a direction or a decision, a committee does not carry much weight.

As regards this grouping of amendments, I would like to remind members that with this bill, the government aims at streamlining and modernizing the Federal Business Development Bank. These are words that are really suited to the market situation as this century comes to an end. But they do not fool anyone about the primary intention of the federal government, which is to interfere even more in regional development. Knowing as we do that this element of regional development is extremely important to Quebec, it is obvious that the government intends increase its presence through this structure, this bank, to interfere, to play a role in the most important processes of the economic development of the state of Quebec. We can feel that very clearly.

The government is introducing totally new legislation, the Business Development Bank of Canada Act, which is the new name of the bank, and thereby revokes the Federal Business Development Bank Act. The Bloc opposes any amendment to the current act instituting the Federal Business Development Bank. The bank must continue to provide last resort bank services to small business. Why? Because this is its basic mission, which is to support small businesses having difficulty obtaining financing.

But now, the government wants to set itself up as a banker. We all know very well that Quebec's position is very clear as regards financial support to business. The Quebec premier said clearly that Quebec does not want to act as a banker but that it is ready to implement numerous measures to support small business.

The federal government has just given itself a means to act as a banker and to compete directly with banks. This group of amendments on the new name of the Federal Business Development Bank is particularly important. The intent of the government is to turn it into a genuine bank.

If we look closely at the very centralizing bill put forward by the Liberal Party of Canada, we understand the reason for this name. It comes from a very clear federal Liberal tradition that goes back to the Trudeau era. A very centralizing tradition with tentacles everywhere.

From now on, the central government will not be involved in regional development, and even less in local development. It is developing, using a global strategy, all over the map. In other words, what is good for Canada is good for Quebec, what is good for Newfoundland is good for Quebec, what is good for Ontario is good for Quebec, what is not good for Ontario is not good for Quebec. We know that Ontario has the final say, because the Minister of Industry is from Ontario.

We oppose this group of government amendments relating to the naming of the Federal Business Development Bank. I refer to the motion of my colleague for Trois-Rivières that says that the Federal Business Development Bank is to be maintained as a body corporate. We propose that the bank retain its primary mission, the current one.

The dissenting report of the Bloc Quebecois members sitting on the Standing Committee on Industry concerning small and medium size enterprises says, and I quote: "That the Quebec government is in a better position to recognize the funding needs of small and medium size enterprises, to develop programs and to implement them".

I will go further into other groups of amendments later on and list the tools Quebec has in this field of activity. By moving into this field, the federal government is once again creating a lot of costly duplication.

As we have said on many occasions, Quebec does not accept that the central government can apply Canadian industrial development plans throughout Canada, with national standards and objectives established by the Department of Industry.

We have to acknowledge something that is very obvious: "Quebec's control in this field of activity must be recognized by its Canadian economic partner, that is Quebec must have sole control over access to small and medium size enterprises and regional development".

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. First, I want to put clause 9 in perspective as regards Articles 1705 and 1710 of the agreement, so as to show how the federal government, with this legislation and other bills, is giving itself very centralizing tools. It is giving itself instruments which, since Pierre Elliott Trudeau, have been part of the Canadian political philosophy, whereby the Canadian constitution is a document which the federal uses to make its partners toe the line, instead of using it to promote co-operation and sharing.

Originally, an agreement was reached between various parties to open up interprovincial trade as much as possible. All the parties involved approved and signed the agreement, which provides that, if there is a trade dispute, a panel with non-binding authority will be set up to hear the aggrieved party.

That party will submit the issue to the five-member panel. These five people hear the aggrieved party and decide that, if there is no redress of the injury, the aggrieved party can take retaliatory measures. Everybody agrees on that. One party takes retaliatory action against another.

Everybody agrees and the agreement is signed. Then the federal government arrives on the scene. It drafts a bill to give concrete form to the agreement but, surprise, it decides, in the legislation, that it is not subject to the rules agreed to. As far as the federal government is concerned, these rules simply do not exist. The federal government feels it is the central power, the

leader, the "Canadian". It must look after the interests of all the smaller entities in Canada and, if some of them are too strong compared to the others, it must hit them on the head.

This is why, through this legislation, the federal government is giving itself a power, not just any power but a power by order, to take retaliatory measures against any party. With this bill, and even though it is not a party to the dispute, even though it is not an aggrieved party, the federal government is giving itself the right to hit on the head those it identifies as the culprits.

When the government member referred to her government, she chose her words carefully but, at the same time, she described this centralizing reality by saying that the government of Canada must fulfill its obligations. The federal government must be the one running the show, the one taking action to make this country go in the right direction, that is toward the development of national standards. In order to do so, that government must give itself extraordinary tools.

The hon. member even referred to a specific authority. She alluded to a specific authority to even make changes to the legislation. In order to meet its responsibilities and fulfill its obligations, the federal government must, at the expense of its partners, be the one which calls the others to order, even though all its partners negotiated in good faith, agreed that everyone would be on an equal footing, and approved the process provided in article 1710, whereby a five-member panel with non-binding authority would hear the complaints of the two parties involved and allow one of them, after 12 months, to take retaliatory measures.

The parties were never advised. This is a very significant demonstration of what the federal government is all about and an indication of the federal Liberals' ultimate goal in playing the part of a centralized government: to make laws without telling anybody and to adopt laws one after the other giving themselves exceptional centralized powers.

Where does this all lead? I wanted to talk about the issue you raised regarding this mechanism because this same mechanism comes up in other bills. For example, in the act to amend the Department of Industry, the minister unilaterally gives himself the power to directly intervene in all of the provinces.

He can enter into agreements with anybody whatsoever in each province: individuals, organizations, municipalities, etc. My colleague for Trois-Rivières was right. This position is strictly constitutional because it has to do with recognized jurisdictions. But in this case, this government, which is an extension of the Trudeau government, is furtively, law by law, arming itself with small, very centralized mechanisms in preparation for the post-referendum period-because they think that Quebec will vote no in the referendum even though we know that Quebec will vote yes-in preparation for a time when they think that they will be able to impose on Canada a vision similar to the one prevailing in 1982, but more centralized, more dictatorial, more controlling.

That, dear colleague, is where this government is going with the bills that we have been careful to describe in the minutest detail. You will note that the government members who rose to speak about this bill never went into detail regarding clause 9 or the mechanism in the provisions we identified, articles 1705 and 1710.

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate as the official opposition critic on regional development. I want to show very clearly that, with this interprovincial trade agreement, the Canadian government is indeed giving itself powers which largely exceed what is provided in the agreement reached by the parties.

We just heard the hon. member explain clause 9, in reference to articles 1705 and 1710. I intend to show unequivocally that, in this agreement, the federal government is giving itself extensive third party powers, without informing those involved.

What is the purpose of this bill? It is simply to implement the provisions of the Agreement on Internal Trade, which was signed by the provinces last summer. To that end, the federal government must pass the required legislative provisions before July 1, 1995, when the agreement will take effect. This is basically the purpose of the legislation.

First, I want to show that, with Bill C-88, the Liberal government is assuming powers which were never mentioned when the agreement was negotiated or signed, thus showing a very centralizing attitude which is also noticeable in relation to several other bills, and which is part of an overall centralizing legislative strategy.

I also want to show some elements of the current international trade dynamics which point to the need for the political autonomy of the regions, as well as the establishment of economic unions, rather than large federations with a rigid and centralizing constitution, such as the Canadian federation.

The clauses of the agreement to which Bill C-88 refers essentially deal with the dispute resolution process, as if the federal government could do anything but regulate. I want to point out to this House the context in which the interprovincial agreement will operate, by going over a few provisions of the Agreement on Internal Trade.

Articles 1601 to 1604 deal with the establishment of an internal trade committee and its secretariat. That committee will supervise the implementation of the agreement and facilitate the resolution of disputes. Article 1705 deals with the setting up of a panel, following a request by the parties involved in a dispute. The panel is composed of five members who will decide on the validity of the request and on the retaliatory action which may be taken by the aggrieved party. We are talking here about a dispute involving two parties.

Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of article 1710 provide that, if the matter has not been resolved within one year of issuance of the panel report, the complaining party may request a meeting of the committee. The committee shall convene within 30 days to discuss with the complaining party the option of taking retaliatory action in respect of the party complained against.

So, the complaining party may, until such time as a mutually satisfactory resolution of the dispute is achieved, impose retaliatory measures of equivalent effect against the party complained against. This is important: the retaliatory measures must be of equivalent effect.

We must understand that the panel's decisions are not binding, which implies that the committee governing the interprovincial trade agreement has no power. If the party complained against does not comply with the panel's recommendations, article 1710 applies. As we saw, article 1710 deals with retaliatory action that the complaining party may take in respect of the party that did not comply with the agreement.

The main purpose of this bill, as we said earlier, is to implement the agreement on internal trade. The Bloc Quebecois has always been in favour of freer trade, which is the context in which states do business today. We support the principle of the agreement.

However, what we understand is that, if the federal government is the aggrieved party under a trade agreement referred to in the agreement, it can impose retaliatory measures that are unprecedented.

However, that is not what is said in Bill C-88. In fact, clause 9 goes well beyond the spirit of the agreement reached by the provinces last summer. Clause 9 reads as follows: "For the purpose of suspending benefits or imposing retaliatory measures of equivalent effect against a province pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement, the Governor in Council may, by order-" By order, no less.

This is a method commonly used by a totalitarian government. This bill clearly shows that the Liberal government wants to govern by order. Are we again facing Liberal totalitarianism? In fact, clause 9 means that if a party is at fault pursuant to article 1710 of the agreement, then the federal government, whether or not it is party to the dispute, assumes the right to impose retaliatory measures against all the provinces without distinction.

The parties were agreed that it was a matter between two parties: the injured party and the party at fault. The government however, assumes the rights of all parties so it can interfere in the dispute. Bill C-88 clearly indicates that the federal government intends to interfere in interprovincial trade and be both judge and judged, to provide through this agreement the power to act by order, a power it alone can exercise, and to extend the application of any federal law to the provinces, as mentioned in clause 9 (c) .

Governing by order in council, setting oneself up as the arbiter of interprovincial trade, are measures that go way beyond the spirit of the agreement signed with the provinces last summer and are an indication of the clearcut centralist strategy of the federal Liberals.

Nowhere in the 13 paragraphs of article 1710 of the agreement is there mentioned any right of the federal government to intervene in a trade dispute when it is not itself one of the parties to the dispute, contrary to the retaliatory measures described in clause 9 of Bill C-88, which it may impose, by order, on any of the parties concerned.

The range of retaliatory measures that the federal government has given itself in this clause is too broad. The attitude reflected in recent federal bills concerned with regional economic development, such as C-46, to establish the Department of Industry; C-88 on interprovincial trade; C-91, to redefine the Federal Business Development Bank; C-76 on certain provisions concerning transfers to the provinces is a clear indication of the ultra-centralist strategy of the present Liberal government.

As the official opposition critic for regional development, I want to warn provincial governments against interference by the present federal government in matters concerning regional economic development. I urge them to be extremely vigilant. They must not downplay their autonomy and jurisdictions or give up certain responsibilities, just because of an impending referendum.

I say to Canada's provincial governments that supporting Quebec's demands means supporting the development of the regions.

Among other things, the 1982 Constitution, the famous Canada Bill, instituted provincial egalitarianism, an egalitarianism which denied the Canadian duality and the existence of the Quebecois people. The current face of Canadian nationalism was formed on the basis of this egalitarianism. Do not forget that, at the end of the 1960s, Pierre Elliott Trudeau came to power with a vision for the nation in which he persisted despite the sharp criticism it drew. He set out to build a more closely integrated Canadian economy by rationalizing the government's activities and by centralizing power.

In June 1978, during the unilateral patriation of the constitution, the federal government published a detailed statement by Pierre Trudeau, called "Time for Action". It was in fact an elaborate constitutional reform proposal. Under that proposal, even though Canada is a patchwork of different sociological and historical influences, for example aboriginal peoples whose legitimate rights we must respect, the two main linguistic communities, the many different multicultural communities, the federal Liberals' approach to the constitution has always been based on the primacy of the citizen and of the rights of the individual. I would like to quote a passage from the publication: "The unity of Canada must transcend the identification Canadians have with provinces, regions and linguistic or other differences-Each must feel that Canada, and the federal Parliament and government acting on his or her behalf, are the best guarantors of the security-"

Such was Pierre Elliott Trudeau's grand statement on centralization. This is the federal Liberals' grand statement on centralization.

As a Bloc member, I say to my fellow Quebecers that such a statement of intentions significantly threatens the existence of a Quebec state, a Quebec nation and the means it needs to develop economically. Ottawa is counting on the marginalization of the provinces. This same objective is reflected in the federal position in all other matters of importance to do with shared jurisdiction. This unitary state spirit of centralizing federalism, which opposes provincial peculiarities, is an obstacle to the development of the people of Quebec and is also the spirit of Bill C-46.

We must remember that this enabling legislation of the Department of Industry increases duplication and overlap in Quebec and denies its government the complete control over regional development it has so long sought.

In the same centralizing vein, under clause 8 of this bill, the Minister of Industry is responsible for regional development in Ontario and Quebec. This bill simply confirms regional development overlaps, because it confirms federal government and Department of Industry intervention in an area of jurisdiction Quebec has long sought as its own.

Quebecers have a very different view of regional development requirements. Decentralization of funds and powers advocated by the Parti Quebecois are what the regions have long waited for in order to take charge. This is a democratic vision of regional development that has nothing to do with the centralist vision of the Liberal government in Ottawa.

In Quebec City, we do not want the development of the province's 16 administrative regions to be driven by the purely sectoral vision of the federal Minister of Industry. Regional development is the cornerstone of a vision of society that requires the intimate understanding of all the needs of the various environments that only regional stakeholders have.

I say to my fellow Quebecers that when, in the referendum, they are asked to decide on the political autonomy of Quebec, a no to the Quebec government's proposal will signify acceptance of Canadian federalism as defined by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and the death of Quebec. Bill C-91 is another example of the denial of the State of Quebec. In this bill, the government's stated objective is to streamline and modernize the Federal Business Development Bank. The vocabulary is undoubtedly meant to reflect the reality of late twentieth century markets, but nobody is in any doubt about the federal government's real objective, which is to meddle further in the regional development of Quebec and increase its presence in the most important mechanisms of Quebec's economic development.

The state of Quebec exists. It is trying to develop its own tools of economic development in spite of the federal government's intrusive presence in regional development. And the Federal Business Development Bank remains a parallel structure, an unacceptable administrative duplication.

Finally, I would like to remind this House, by way of illustration, of some of the extremely centralizing and anti-Quebec provisions of Bill C-76. This bill, which concerns the implementation of provisions of the 1995-96 budget, sets its sights much further than that fiscal year. In fact, clause 48, which requires no prior negotiation with the provinces, would result in a shortfall of $2.5 billion, $650 million of it in Quebec alone. Furthermore, implementation of the Canada social transfer for health care and social programs will result in a shortfall of $4.5 billion for the provinces in 1997-98. The Bloc Quebecois also condemns this bill because it introduces a mechanism that the federal government, which according to the constitution has no jurisdiction over social programs, will use to intervene to a greater extent in this area and impose national standards on Quebec.

Bill C-76 maintains national standards for health care and provides for adding new national standards for social assistance and post-secondary education. If the provinces fail to abide by these standards, funding will be cut accordingly under C-76. This arrogant federalism bears not the slightest resemblance to decentralization. These national standards will limit the provinces' autonomy within their own jurisdictions. Furthermore, distinct as they are, the people of Quebec will not see their demands reflected in the new national standards applied from coast to coast in an area that is crucial to its cultural identity: education.

As for Bill C-88, it is eminently centralist. It reflects a retrograde view of trade relations between the regions of one and the same continent. Today, the trend is towards globalization, removing tariff and non-tariff barriers and free trade, not using orders in council to regulate a continental market led by a unitary state like Canada.

The decisive levels at which we can be competitive are increasingly located at the local, regional and provincial levels, all of which does not fit Ottawa's centralist mould. The new international model for regional economic development reflects the globalization of our economies which, in turn, means that regional economic spaces are gradually becoming absorbed into a single global economic space.

Fernand Martin, of the Faculty of Economic Science at the University of Montreal, is very emphatic about this international regional reality, and I quote: "Local businesses now realize that they are not only competing with domestic competitors but all the others as well, without the benefit of the protection afforded by national borders". This new reality of international

markets gives rise to a second economic phenomenon: economic concentration by businesses to remain competitive. As a result, regional economies are becoming an important part of the overall strategy.

In this context, intervention through a national government structure is no longer required. The State of Quebec, by giving the regions unprecedented powers in its blueprint for society, has shown it has a very sure grasp of the new problems it faces as a result of international trade, unlike the Canadian federal government. NAFTA would help to further diminish the federal government's power to intervene in economic matters. Where international trade is concerned, agreements like GATT already prevent Canada from imposing tariffs and subsidizing exporters. These international agreements tend to accelerate the globalization of our economy and, like the dynamics of regional economics, to diminish the federal government's control over the national economy.

In the nineteenth century, globalization of trade was sparked first of all by the new multinationals. It was the multinationals which initially caused countries to shift towards a new economic space like NAFTA. Today, their ability to restructure an economic space has been illustrated many times over. In fact, they confer international status on the cities or regions where they are located.

In conclusion, we are not opposed to this bill because we do not care about the globalization of markets and international trade. We oppose this bill simply because, to the detriment of all other parties, the federal government granted itself the ultimate power, the power to govern by order without making any agreement with any of the parties beforehand.

I say to my fellow Quebecers that a vote for a sovereign Quebec is a vote for the elimination of the federal government's interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and for the elimination of many overlaps and duplications, which will result in real savings. A yes vote for a sovereign Quebec would permit Quebec to put job creation, labour force training, education, health and social assistance policies in place which meet its needs and are geared to its priorities.

In addition, a yes vote would help protect Quebec from being the victim of federal manoeuvres like the 1982 constitutional patriation and would help put an end to the federal government's unilateral cuts to transfer payments.

To sum it up, it would be a yes to adulthood, to confidence, and to the open-mindedness and pride of the people we already are.

[Code Of Conduct, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, as official opposition critic for parliamentary reform, to speak on Motion No. 24 regarding the appointment of a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to develop a code of conduct for parliamentarians. I will address three points.

I will start with the issue of committee membership, as it seems very important to me. Second, I will give the whole historical background to this effort on the part of governments to try to introduce a code of conduct for parliamentarians, an effort going back over almost 20 years. Finally, I will touch on the present context in terms of ethics, which obviously leads us to believe that all this is nothing but window dressing.

In fact, the motion put forward by the government House leader regarding a Canadian parliamentarian code of conduct is nothing new in the history of parliamentary government and even democracy in the western world.

The fact that this government wants to appoint a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to develop a code of conduct is another manifestation of the Liberal tradition of giving the appearance of having a clear conscience publicly, while continuing to scheme behind the scene.

Before getting into what this Liberal code of conduct is really about, I would like to call the attention of the House to a specific point. The fact that eight senators and 14 members of Parliament would be appointed to this committee is sheer nonsense to me.

How can the government have the nerve, the gall to table in this House of elected representatives of the people, a motion to appoint a joint committee, which would include senators, to develop a code of conduct for parliamentarians of this Canadian democratic institution?

The Liberal government's attitude is revolting. To appoint a committee on parliamentary ethics which would include non-elected senators violates the most elementary principle of western democracy. The public knows that the Senate is an archaic and useless institution whose sole purpose is to reward friends of the regime, whether Liberal or Conservative, so that they will do some partisan work for the government or for the interests which they represent.

I will simply say that senators can continue to work and practise their profession or calling. As you know, a senator recently joined a prestigious law firm.

We deplore the fact that the Bloc amendments, which oppose the presence of senators on the committee, are bluntly rejected by the government. Again, senators are not elected representatives. The government's attitude shows once again that its motion is just a joke and that the Liberal Party of Canada is antidemocratic and does not care about the public.

The Bloc has always been opposed to the existence of the Senate, a position which is supported by a large number of Canadians. Given the extremely hard economic context, a debt exceeding $550 billion, as well as the current unemployment and poverty problems in Quebec and in Canada, the amount of $42.6 million allocated to that committee could be used to stimulate the economy and create jobs.

The Fathers of Canadian Confederation defended the appointment of senators on the ground that members of the Upper House had to be independent. Indeed, considering that they do not have to be elected by the public, that they are appointed until the age of 75, which is no small job security given how precarious jobs are these days, and given that unemployment is so high in Quebec and in Canada, one would think that senators deal more or less at arm's length with the government. On the contrary, the members of the upper Chamber have always been more interested in playing party politics than in fulfilling their more proper role as impartial legislators.

It bears repeating that senators are appointed on a strictly partisan basis and that the party in power is itself trying to take over control of the Senate by appointing a greater number of senators. A large number, close to 50 per cent, of the senators recruited by the Prime Minister have political experience, and most of the rest have performed valuable services for the party in power. Everyone knows that it is a snug retirement haven for politicians and others who have always supported the interests of the Liberals and Conservatives in the House of Commons and who were always there to serve Canadian big business.

And the Liberal Party of Canada talks about parliamentary ethics; it is a disgrace to democracy and the Parliament of Canada.

Having said that, I would like to look at another aspect of the question of a parliamentary code of conduct, and that is conflict of interest. There is no obligation to divulge the pecuniary interests of a member of the House of Commons. However, section 21 of the Standing Orders of this democratic institution provides that no member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he or she has a pecuniary interest, and the vote of any member so interested will be disallowed.

If I am reminding this House of this basic rule of conduct governing the conduct of Canadian parliamentarians, it is because the events of the past few years, in particular those involving the conduct of this government, have raised serious doubts about the Liberal government's political will to establish a code of conduct which would really bring total transparency to the management of public affairs.

This is a very important issue. The waffling done over the past 30 years by the two parties in power regarding the implementation of a law really governing the conduct of elected representatives would indicate that there is no real political will to change things. For example, in 1973, the federal government published a green paper, "Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest", in which it proposed to group and extend the scope of the rules which existed at the time. This green paper was studied by a committee of the House of Commons and by a committee of the Senate and both made many recommendations.

Two years later, on June 10, 1975, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections tabled its report on the green paper. In general, it approved the provisions and recommended a few amendments. Two years later, on June 26, 1978, Bill C-62, the Independence of Parliament Act, was tabled in the House of Commons complete with new regulations for the House of Commons and the Senate. It died on the Order Paper when Parliament was dissolved on October 10, 1978.

However, there was a new beginning. On October 16, 1978, a slightly changed Independence of Parliament Act was reintroduced as Bill C-6. The accompanying Rules of the House and of the Senate were tabled in the House on October 30, 1978. The bill was referred to committee on March 8, 1979, but there was no ensuing action and the bill died on the Order Paper when Parliament was dissolved on March 26, 1979.

At the end of the Liberals' term of office, on July 7, 1983, a federal study group was set up to examine the principles and rules governing conflict of interest and their evolution and to decide whether the issue should be dealt with differently.

The report did not appear until May 1984. These people are unbelievable Mr. Speaker; they are constantly carrying out the same studies over and over! That report was entitled: "Ethical Conduct in the Public Sector", and was known as the Starr-Sharp report.

Another government, other political practices. On November 25, 1985, the Conservative government asked the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services to consider the appropriateness of setting up a register of members' interests. As part of its work, the committee was to decide whether it was appropriate to disclose the remuneration members received for sitting on the board of directors of a public or private firm or for performing other duties or occupying other positions in various organizations. After consulting the members of all parties, the Liberals, the Tories and the NDP-the committee concluded that there was no need to set up such a register and that existing legislation on members' conflicts of interest was sufficient.

And the saga continues. In February 1988, Bill C-114, Members of the Senate and the House of Commons Conflict of Interest Act, was given first reading.

In September 1988, the legislative committee on Bill C-114 met three times, but was unable to finish considering the bill before Parliament was dissolved, on October 1, 1988.

In November 1989, the scenario was repeated with the first reading of Bill C-46, Members of the Senate and House of Commons Conflict of Interest Act. This bill was essentially the same as Bill C-114, with a few minor changes. This bill died on the Order Paper when Parliament was prorogued on May 12, 1991.

November 1991 marked the first reading of Bill C-43, Members of the Senate and the House of Commons Conflict of Interest Act. This bill was almost identical to the bills I have already mentioned: Bill C-114 and Bill C-46. And then, the same old story, the bill was immediately referred to a Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons.

In March 1993, first reading of Bill C-116, the Conflict of Interests of Public Office Holders Act, which included amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act. Finally, in June 1993, a report from the Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the Senate recommended that Bill C-116 be set aside. You can hardly take this process seriously! The same day, a similar report was tabled in the Senate. Bills C-43 and C-116 died on the Order Paper, upon dissolution of the 34th Parliament on September 8, 1993.

The process is a political masquerade and shows the controversy that exists around a code of ethics for Canadian parliamentarians. All this is necessary to make the Liberals feel good about themselves and as a sop to democracy in the Canadian federal system.

Now what? We start over. Throughout the 1993 electoral campaign, the Liberal Party of Canada was saying that ethics should figure strongly in its mandate. It also said that in 1973. In the January 1994 speech from the throne, the government said it attached the greatest importance to integrity and wanted the people's trust. What a dream.

However, as regards conflicts of interest, the most important element in a code of conduct and ethics, the ethics counsellor, appointed by the Liberal government, still reports to the Privy Council, has no independent investigative powers and continues to report to the Prime Minister.

The Liberal Party's red book provided that, and I quote: "The integrity of the government is put into question when there is a perception that the public agenda is set by lobbyists exercising undue influence away from public view". Recent events have shown that the entire Liberal strategy on a parliamentary code of ethics, confirmed by the government motion before us, is simply window dressing.

Thus, the Broadcasting Act, which comes under the Minister of Canadian Heritage, carries no weight in the face of the powerful lobby of Power DirecTv, headed by André Desmarais, son-in-law of the Prime Minister. The Liberal government has even reached the point of defending ideas dear to the hearts of Brian Mulroney's Conservatives and is becoming the advocate of North America wide competition. In reading the releases from the Minister of Canadian Heritage one can only bow to the strength of the Power lobby and kiss federal democracy goodbye, because money is king.

We should be concerned by the pettiness of our institutions and some of our political representatives. Not only does the government mock its own legislation and renounce the CRTC, which is responsible for implementing it, but it takes measures retroactively, preventing Expressvu from starting up its service in September. All this in the name of competition. Meanwhile, the ethics counsellor of red book fame is sleeping in the Prime Minister's waiting room. After only 17 months in power, this government already has a long track record attesting to its lack of openness.

In addition to the previous examples and the government's mediocre record for introducing legislation establishing a code of ethics for parliamentarians, you will recall that, on September 26, 1994, Canadian Press reported that, according to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act, lobbyists arranged more meetings in the months prior to the tabling of Bill C-43, which was passed on May 8, while others vowed to go to court should the law force them to disclose their public and political relations.

In this case as in many others, the lack of transparency prevented the public from learning the extent and nature of lobbyists' representations with regard to Bill C-43. Ironically enough, lobbyists managed to influence the law aimed at limiting their influence. That takes some doing.

Worse yet, according to Mitchell Sharp himself, the Prime Minister's senior consultant on ethics matters, even if Bill C-43 had already become law at the time talks were held on privatizing Terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport, the public would have been none the wiser.

The majority report on Bill C-43 tabled by the Liberals reflects a faint willingness to oversee lobbying activities and ensure that the management of government is as open as possible. The government's attitude in that regard shows that, once again, the Liberals are using double talk on the issue of ethics. They are only trying to make themselves feel good and to score points with the electorate.

While the Government House Leader is tabling a motion calling for the establishment of a special committee responsible for developing a code of conduct for parliamentarians, behind the scene, this very government is flouting the most basic rules of democracy by favouring friends of the Liberal party and governing on behalf of the financial establishment and big business in Canada. How could we not want to leave this place of political scheming?

The Bloc Quebecois, as the official opposition, feels that, to restore the integrity of our democratic institutions, we must first do away with the futile commitments of the past 20 years, which mislead voters. We must also ensure that the management of government is as open as possible, in order to eliminate grey areas and assure the people that public policy decisions are consistent with their general interests and not those of the lobbyist friends of this Liberal federal government.

[Supply, June 1st, 1995]

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?

[Supply, June 1st, 1995]

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-

[Supply, June 1st, 1995]

moved:

That this House condemn the government's legislative agenda, which makes clear its intention to usurp provincial areas of jurisdiction and construct an entirely centralized state, as can be seen from Bills C-76, C-88, C-46 and C-91, all designed to take substantial powers away from Quebec and transfer them to the federal government.

Madam Speaker, on this opposition day, the Bloc Quebecois is presenting the following motion:

That this House condemn the government's legislative agenda, which makes clear its intention to usurp provincial areas of jurisdiction and construct an entirely centralized state, as can be seen from Bills C-76, C-88, C-46 and C-91, all designed to take substantial powers away from Quebec and transfer them to the federal government.

With this motion, the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, is seeking to denounce the extremely centralizing offensive launched by the present federal government. It also wants to show that the ultimate goal of the federal Liberals is to establish a de facto unitarian state in Canada. We have seen with recent federal pieces of legislation dealing more specifically with regional economic development, such as Bill C-46 on establishing the Department of Industry, Bill C-88 on interprovincial trade, Bill C-91 on redefining the Federal Business Development Bank, and Bill C-76 regarding certain dispositions concerning transfer payments to the provinces, the increasingly centralizing approach of the present federal government.

This motion, which I present this morning on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, is a warning to provincial governments to beware of the interference of the federal government with regard to regional economic development. I urge them to be vigilent and not to let some of their powers slip away as their provincial autonomy is put on the back burner because of the upcoming referendum in Quebec.

Even though every single piece of legislation being presented by the federal government in the area of regional economic development has an impact on the political autonomy of all, this morning, I want to address my comments more specifically to my fellow Quebecers. Because they deny the specificity of Quebec, and the need for Quebec to have its own tools of development, it is in Quebec that federal centralizing measures hurt the most.

One of the effects of the Constitution Act, 1982, the "Canada Bill", was to establish provincial equality where all provinces would be on the same level. It created a sort of egalitarianism which denied the Canadian duality and the very existence of the Quebec nation. It is on this kind of egalitarianism that they will base today's Canadian nationalism. Towards the end of the sixties, Pierre Elliott Trudeau came to power with a nationalistic vision that he would not give up in spite of repeated interventions. The establishment and development of a more unified Canadian economy had to be based on the rationalization of government operations and on the concentration of powers.

In June 1978, in a context of unilateral patriation of the constitution, the federal government published a meaty declaration by Pierre Trudeau under the title A Time for Action . In fact, it was a very elaborate constitutional reform project. One can see from that declaration that, even though the Canadian people is the result of sociological and historical diversity and comprises the first nations, who have legitimate rights we must respect, two large linguistic groups and numerous cultural communities, the constitutional approach of the federal Liberals is essentially based on the primacy of citizens and individual freedoms.

Therefore, and I am quoting part of that published declaration: "The unity of Canada must transcend the identification Canadians have with provinces, regions and linguistic or other differences. -Each must feel that Canada, and the federal Parliament and government acting on his or her behalf, are the best guarantors of the security".

As member of the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, I say to my fellow Quebecers that such a declaration, such a statement of intent, threatens considerably the existence of the Quebec state and the Quebec nation and threatens also the economic development tools we want to give ourselves.

The referendum failure of May 20, 1980, the failure of the PQ government's proposal, changed the circumstances. The federal government now enters into negotiations by taking the offensive; it starts by reminding us that decentralization is not a solution to Canada's problems and states that the Canadian federation sorely needs the federal government to ensure a strong economic management.

The Canada Act, or Constitution Act of 1982, includes in the famous Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a formal amendment limiting the capacity of provincial governments to obstruct economic mobility and therefore extending federal jurisdictions to all essential matters necessary to preserve the economic union. The goal is to put an end to the many provincial initiatives which impede the mobility of production factors; in other words, Ottawa is trying to marginalise the provincial level.

We find the same objective in the federal position on all the important questions relating to areas of shared jurisdiction.

For example, Bill C-88, an act to implement the agreement on internal trade, signed by the provinces last summer and denounced by the official opposition, is a direct result of this highly centralizing outlook of the Canadian government, started by the federal Liberals. Bill C-88 gives the federal government powers which were never considered at the time the agreement was negotiated or signed, and embodies the extremely centralizing position of the federal Liberal government.

Indeed, clause 9 of the bill goes way beyond the spirit of the agreement signed last summer. It reads as follows: "For the purpose of suspending benefits or imposing retaliatory measures of equivalent effect against the province pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement, the Governor in Council may, by order, do any one or more of the following-" What we are talking about, here, is an order in council. This is no laughing matter. Orders in council, or decrees, are generally the means used by totalitarian governments. What this clause says is that the Liberal government wants to govern by decree. Are we faced with the prospect of a Liberal dictatorship?

Similarly, the text of clause 9 means that, if ever a party is recognized at fault pursuant to article 1710 of the agreement-and I would like to remind you, Madam Speaker, that article 1710 deals with retaliatory measures-the aggrieved party can take retaliatory measures against the other party which does not conform to the agreement.

Now, the federal government, no matter whether it is part of the dispute or not, is taking it upon itself to impose retaliatory measures on all provinces, without distinction. As regards this bill, the federal government shows its intention of setting itself up, in the area of interprovincial trade, as both judge and party, of establishing, within this agreement, an enforcement power that would take the form of an order in council, which it alone can invoke, and of extending the application of federal laws to the provinces, as is mentioned in paragraph (c) of clause 9.

Therefore, Madam Speaker, the fact that the government intends to govern by order in council and act as if it were in charge of interprovincial trade goes far beyond the spirit of the agreement that was reached by the provinces, last summer.

The government is assuming too much retaliatory power through this clause. Indeed, it is assuming excessive power to take measures against all the residents of a province. Obviously, clause 9 of Bill C-88 does not go in the same direction as the current tendencies in international trade. This is all the more relevant since economic development is based on competitive development, which seeks to take advantage of the quality of the workforce, the infrastructure, and the savings associated with conglomeration and urbanization.

It must be remembered that those levers come under provincial jurisdiction, since health, education, and land use planning come under provincial jurisdiction. By setting itself up as an arbitrator in international trade, under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and therefore Bill C-88, the federal government is impeding the development and the autonomy of provinces.

The spirit of the unitary state, of centralizing federalism opposed to provincial identity, thus directly impeding directly the development of the people of Quebec, can also be found in Bill C-46. This enabling bill for the Department of Industry adds to duplication and overlap in Quebec, and deprives the state of Quebec of exclusive authority over regional economic development.

Along these very centralizing lines, clause 8 of the bill specifies that the Minister of Industry of Canada, a minister from Ontario, is responsible for regional development in Ontario and in Quebec. This bill confirms the existence of overlap in regional development, by confirming the interventionism of the federal department of industry in an area over which Quebec has long claimed jurisdiction.

Quebecers have a very different way of looking at their regional economic development needs. Decentralization of budgetary envelopes and powers proposed by the Parti Quebecois is the answer that outlying regions in Quebec have long

been waiting for in order to take charge of their own interests. This is a democratic vision of regional development which has nothing in common with the centralizing vision of the liberal government in Ottawa.

Quebec does not want to see the development of its 16 administrative regions based on an exclusively industrial vision controlled by the federal department of industry. Regional development forms the basis of a social covenant which rests on an understanding of all the needs of the various milieux which only regional stakeholders can understand well.

I say to my Quebec compatriots that in the context of the referendum where they will have to decide on the political autonomy of Quebec, a negative answer to the proposal of the Quebec government team would mean accepting the centralizing federalism defined by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and the end of the people of Quebec.

Bill C-91 is another example of denial of the existence of the Quebec State. With this bill, the government seeks to rationalize and modernize the Federal Business Development Bank, words undoubtedly well suited to the market realities of the end of this century, but that fool no one as to the primary objective of the federal government, that is to interfere even more in matters of regional development in Quebec while increasing its involvement in the main mechanisms of economic development in Quebec.

There is such a thing as a Quebec state. It is trying to create its own development instruments, despite the federal government's intrusive presence in economic development issues. The FBDB remains a parallel structure, an unacceptable example of administrative duplication. Several structures and programs addressing the needs of small business are already in existence in Quebec.

The Société de développement industriel is an example, though it was not used efficiently under the Liberal government of Premier Robert Bourassa. Programs like production assistance, with a contribution reaching up to 35 per cent of capital expenditures for a minimum investment of $100,000, and the Reprise de la PME program, which offers loan guarantees covering up to 80 per cent of a financial institution's net loss, are tangible illustrations of the Quebec State's involvement in assistance to small business.

Let us not forget the solidarity funds: the Fonds d'aide aux entreprises, which is managed by the regional development councils; the Fonds décentralisé de création d'emplois, managed by the Secrétariat au développement des régions; and Innovation (PME), managed by the ministry of industry, commerce, science and technology. All these attest as well that a very well balanced assistance structure exists already for small business in Quebec.

In his last budget, the Minister of Finance of the Quebec State, Jean Campeau, claimed he would maximize the use of venture capital by increasing the number of regional funds and creating the Fonds de solidarité de la CSN. Among such regional funds, I want to mention SOLIDE, a venture capital fund created under a program called SOLIDEQ, the purpose of which is to promote local development. The SOLIDEQ program was created jointly by the Fonds de solidarité du Québec and the Union des municipalités régionales de comté du Québec.

I cannot help mentioning the Caisses populaires Desjardins, that play an important role in the funding of small business by granting loans at the local community level. A network of 1,232 caisses populaires everywhere, throughout Quebec, provides almost a quarter of all business loans in Quebec.

So, this is what centralizing federalism is all about: parallel structures at outrageous costs that are directly responsible for the Canadian deficit. Centralizing federalism is responsible for the bankruptcy of the country.

Furthermore, clause 20 of the bill allows the Federal Business Development Bank to conclude agreements directly with individuals or organizations. This means that the FBDB could conclude agreements, among other things, with the Conseils régionaux de développement, as the Federal Office of Regional Development wants. However, in Quebec, the Act respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif forbids organizations operating under provincial legislation to conclude agreements with the federal government without the minister's consent.

Once again, the federal government is ignoring the Quebec government's existence and is shamelessly giving itself the power to act without consulting Quebec.

Finally, I would like to conclude by reminding the House of some of the elements of Bill C-76 that represent extremely centralizing and anti-Quebec measures. Bill C-76, which deals with the implementation of certain provisions of the federal 1995-96 budget, goes way beyond the scope of that fiscal year.

Indeed, clause 48, without prior negotiation with the provinces, will result in a shortfall of $2.5 billion, with $650 million in Quebec alone. Moreover, the implementation of the Canada health and social transfer will mean a shortfall of $4.5 billion in 1997-98 for the provinces.

The Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, is also opposing this bill because it establishes a mechanism whereby the federal government, despite the fact that it does not have any constitutional jurisdiction over social programs, will be able to further interfere in these areas and impose national standards on Quebec.

Bill C-76 maintains national health care standards while taking away all transfer payments and introduces new standards in social assistance and postsecondary education. If the provinces do not meet these standards, their funds will be cut off by Bill C-76.

This arrogant kind of federalism does not decentralize powers in any way, as these national standards will limit the autonomy of the provinces in their own areas of jurisdiction. In addition, Quebec's distinct society will not recognize itself in the new national standards implemented from coast to coast in a sector as important to its cultural identity as education.

In fact, many observers and analysts have confirmed that Bill C-76 relegates the provinces to a purely advisory role and does not give them a veto on the introduction of new national standards in their own areas of jurisdiction. For example, in an editorial published in Le Devoir, Lise Bissonnette says this: "Bill C-76 treats postsecondary education as a social program and allows Ottawa to apply national standards in this and other sectors. The most that the provinces, whose jurisdiction over education is very clearly stated in the Canadian Constitution, can expect is to be consulted".

For her part, Chantal Hébert wrote in the March 31 edition of La Presse : ``In the bill it tabled in the Commons to implement its February budget, the federal government opens the door to the unilateral introduction of new national standards in sectors such as postsecondary education, child care, etc-. In fact, Bill C-76 gives the provinces a purely advisory role in this exercise.-No provision of this bill requires prior provincial consent for the introduction of national standards for social programs''.

In closing, I say to my fellow Quebecers that voting Yes to Quebec sovereignty would end federal interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction and lead to real savings by eliminating duplication and overlap.

Voting Yes to Quebec sovereignty would allow Quebec to develop job creation, manpower training, education, health and welfare policies in line with its needs and priorities.

Voting to Quebec sovereignty would also ensure that Quebec will no longer be vulnerable to federal low blows such as the patriation of the constitution in 1982 without Quebec's consent, and the federal government's unilateral cuts to transfer payments. In short, whatever the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi may say, Quebec says Yes to sovereignty, to maturity, to trust, to openness, and to the pride of the people we already are.

[Regional Development, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in this House, we can see that the real person responsible for regional development in Quebec is the minister from Ontario.

As Quebec is increasingly decentralizing and regionalizing, are we to understand, with the establishment of a new mandate linking the federal office and the Federal Business Development Bank, that the minister, through the ever popular flexible federalism the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs referred to yesterday, is setting up a central Canadian agency to increase overlap and duplication and to attack Quebec's regional development policy head on?

[Regional Development, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, who is also responsible for regional development in Quebec.

The federal government is preparing to review all of its regional development activities. In the future, the Federal Office of Regional Development will concentrate its activities on a single program focussed on small and medium businesses cutting its aid budgets by 60 per cent at the same time. With Bill C-91 on the federal bank, Ottawa intends to sign agreements directly with agencies that are under Quebec's jurisdiction.

How can the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec talk of harmonizing federal and provincial action, when he is preparing, with Bill C-91 among others, to intervene, indeed to act as the representative of Quebec regional development agencies over the head of the Quebec government?