Gaston Leroux

[The Budget, March 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, anyone who is not aware of the government's real situation, of the figures, anyone who does not know the real intentions and the mess this government finds itself in, would be tempted to vote for a minister so eager to speak about job creation and training, would be tempted to vote for the Minister of Human Resources Development after such an enthusiastic speech.

What enthusiasm. What a man, with his desire to put young people back to work. What a man who wants post-secondary training for students. What a man who wants the transfer of

funds to give the provinces the power to make their own decisions.

People do not take these political speeches at face value. People know very well that debts are being offloaded in this budget. They also know very well that these transfers mean that the provinces will receive less over the next three years. For Quebec, the shortfall will be more than $2 billion.

When the Minister of Human Resources Development speaks about putting young people back to work, giving young people the chance to be trained, how can he explain that his reform plans would send young people right into debt? Since there is no money left, student loans and grants are of course frozen. But credit is to be extended more readily. At the same time, while responsibilities are being transferred, transfer payments are being reduced. This forces the provinces to come up with very tough budgets also.

This dynamic minister who would offer fine training through his plans for job-related training in conjunction with employers and with the workplace, does he know that this has been planned for a long time in Quebec? Does he know that in Quebec the University of Sherbrooke has a co-operative training program in which all students are not merely trained, but are also sent on regular placements with potential employers? Does he know that this approach was taken by what some call factory schools where students get practical training, long before the minister announced his plans, long before the minister suggested that such things should exist? No, Mr. Speaker.

How can the minister, in such an ardent speech, maintain this hope for young people when his budget consists solely of reducing transfers and offloading the federal debt onto the provincial budgets?

[Cultural Sovereignty, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Conference of the Arts stated that it obtained a confidential document originated by the U.S. administration, describing a strategy that may be detrimental to the cultural sovereignty of Canada and several other countries.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us whether the minister has been in touch with the U.S. authorities and could she indicate the origin of this document?

[Atlantic Canada, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as the official opposition critic on regional development, I rise to participate in this debate on the motion put forward by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing.

First of all, I feel that elected representatives from all parts of Canada are all concerned about economic development. This is extremely important under the current economic conditions, especially since we know that it is essential to create jobs to stop stagnating and start moving toward economic and structural development.

I am a little surprised by the motion. This motion respecting federal assistance for Atlantic Canada's economic development, which was put forward by my colleague from Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, touches on, among other things, the importance of a better future for the Maritimes. This concern is quite commendable, in my opinion.

With all due respect, this motion reflects a certain lack of knowledge about the federal government's regional development policies and about Quebec's traditional demands regarding regional development.

I wish to state in this House my position on this motion concerning equity in federal contributions to Atlantic Canada's regional development. The Bloc Quebecois must, of course, show some opposition to such a motion.

Allow me in the next few minutes to elaborate on some of the reasons why Quebec must give priority to its own regional development.

The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency or ACOA is the federal government's main regional development agency in Atlantic Canada. The ACOA mostly deals with small business, helping to launch new ventures and modernize existing companies. On November 30, 1993, the federal government's contribution amounted to $865 million out of the total $1 billion budget forecast, or $431 per capita.

Until very recently, the federal government's main regional development agency in Quebec was the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec or FORDQ. Since the FORDQ was created in 1991, its mandate has been to emphasize long-term economic development and job creation.

However, given its limited financial resources, the FORDQ will pay more attention to small business by offering information and analysis services and promoting exports. This is a far cry from the basic principles of local development.

Under these circumstances, why would Quebec want to invest additional public funds in Atlantic Canada? On July 20, 1994, the federal government's share-close to $350 million-had still not been committed in Quebec. The total budget for the economic and regional development agreement is $1.6 billion, or, and this is the total budget, $64 per capita in Quebec.

In Western Canada, in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, Western Economic Diversification Canada or WED is the main federal vehicle for regional development.

As of November 30, 1993, spending under these programs totalled $936 million. The ERDA provides for a budget of $1.l2 billion or $160 per capita. That is, very briefly, what regional development looks like in Canada, and I want the hon. member to pay attention to these figures and this breakdown of federal regional development assistance.

There is no common standard for the West, the Maritimes and Quebec. The federal contribution to these agreements is $64 per capita in Quebec, compared to $160 in the western provinces and $431 in the Atlantic provinces.

So why should Quebec support a motion that would increase federal assistance to the Atlantic provinces, when some provinces seem to be more equal than others?

The 1993 and 1994 Estimates indicate that the federal government spends less on regional development in Quebec than anywhere else. In fact, the budget for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is $314 million, the budget for the Department of Western Economic Diversification is $238 million, and the budget for the FORDQ is $232 million.

However, the total population of these other provinces is less than the total population of Quebec.

In his last budget, the finance minister announced a cut of $70 million in the subsidies and contributions for the FORDQ. Quebec's regions are the big losers as far as federal funding is concerned. Since 1983, annual federal funding for regional development increased only 50 per cent in Quebec, but 250 per cent in the Maritimes and 300 per cent in the West.

In other words, through the federal government, Quebec funds regional development programs and policies it is not in a position to implement in its own regions. The 1993-94 budget for the Quebec Regional Affairs Secretariat is for $71 million, while Quebec's part under agreements concluded with the west and the maritimes amounts to $550 million, or 25 per cent of the $2.2 billion federal budget.

Ottawa's regional development policies are clearly discriminatory toward Quebec. If the amount Quebec receives from the federal government in transfer payments and for all kinds of national programs is approximately equal to the tax it pays to the federal government, this is among other things thanks to transfer payments earmarked for income security and the unemployment insurance program. In other words, for want of a true regional development policy in Quebec, the federal government is maintaining poverty and unemployment there. This is why Quebec is calling for and has for years called for the repatriation of all regional development responsibilities. The Bloc Quebecois therefore has no choice but to oppose a motion entailing an increase in moneys for regional development in the maritimes.

Regional development is of course not a distinct area of jurisdiction in the Canadian constitution, as a result of which Quebec is forced to engage in endless negotiations to arrive at agreements. Unfailingly, these agreements ultimately authorize the federal government to interfere repeatedly and awkwardly in regional development. It is interference. The regions in Quebec suffer from duplication of efforts in regional development matters and from the lack of consistency in government policy.

Which brings us back to what the present Liberal government is doing, namely structural duplication giving rise to considerable operating costs as opposed to real investments in development, as well as multiplicity of government parties involved which frequently results in confusion among regional stakeholders. Quebec has adopted an overall regional development plan, an overall plan for each of its sixteen administrative regions. This is why, and justly so, it wants to get back from the federal government the resources it should receive for regional development. Let us first establish fairness in redistributing federal moneys for regional development before broaching the subject of the gap between what Quebec and other regions in Canada receive.

[Regional Development, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister agree that, as far as regional development is concerned, the FORD-Q, which no longer has a budget, has become an empty shell and will only be used to promote the visibility of the federal government in the regions and to set national standards for regional development, while ignoring the priorities of the Quebec government in this respect?

[Regional Development, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

Last week in the House, the Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec confirmed that his strategy for regional development would be based on providing assistance to small business. After cutting the budget of the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec, the minister indicated that the new approach to helping small business would consist in providing consulting services.

Since the FORD-Q no longer has a budget for providing financial assistance to small business, will the Prime Minister admit that the Department of Industry, in other words, the minister responsible for regional economic development in Ontario, will now be responsible for the federal strategy for regional development in Quebec?

[Regional Development, February 16th, 1995]

I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If it is clear, given that Quebec has adopted a general strategy for regional development, including assistance to businesses, would the minister not agree that, in the interest of avoiding all duplication and overlap, as the Prime Minister has said, he must recognize Quebec as the sole authority in terms of regional development, including assistance to businesses?

[Regional Development, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech to the Chambre of Commerce of Metropolitan Quebec, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and minister responsible for Quebec stated that the government must concentrate less on regional development and focus instead on helping small business.

Can the Minister of Finance, minister responsible for regional development in Quebec, confirm his government's intention to withdraw from regional development and focus exclusively on helping small business?

[Petitions, February 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to table before this House a petition on behalf of senior citizens from my riding of Richmond-Wolfe.

I would like to do so by stating the facts. It reads: We, the undersigned citizens of Disraeli, Danville, Lawrenceville, Maricourt, Valcourt, Saint-Élie d'Orford, Rock Forest, Richmond, Windsor, Saint-Claude, Stoke Centre, Chesterville and Saint-Denis-de-Brompton, wish to call the attention of Parliament to the following facts.

Whereas seniors are naturally more at a loss when faced with voice mail technology; whereas seniors are entitled to adequate service, particularly with regard to their income security enquiries; therefore, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ask the government to abandon its plan to introduce voice mail systems for seniors.

I table this petition, Madam Speaker.

[Recognition Of The Patriotes Of Lower Canada And The Reformers Of Upper Canada, December 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say to the member of the Reform Party who just spoke that we recognize English Canada and anglophone culture. They are our friends. And now, I welcome this opportunity to take part, at the request of my party, in the debate on the motion presented by the hon. member for Verchères, a motion that reads as follows: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should officially recognize the historical contribu-

tion of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada to the establishment of a system of responsible democratic government in Canada and in Quebec, as did the Government of Quebec in 1982 by proclaiming by order a national patriots' day.

The dramatic events known as the Rebellion of 1837-38 have often been depicted in textbooks and travel guides as the actions of a band of criminals who challenged the established order. The purpose of the motion submitted by the hon. member for Verchères is to rectify this perception and to recognize officially the historic contribution of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada towards establishing genuinely democratic and responsible government in Canada and in Quebec.

Perhaps I should make myself clear at this point. We are talking about recognizing the merits of the Patriotes, not about rehabilitating them or obtaining a pardon, as though they were criminals. In fact, we think it is high time the federal government recognized the fact that these events were part of the historic current of social and political unrest that affected both the colonies and their mother countries in the 18th and 19th centuries.

In Canada these events, which occurred at a time of great political upheaval in Western Europe, were centred in Ontario or Upper Canada, in Quebec or Lower Canada, and in Nova Scotia. The goals of the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada were threefold. Basically they were fighting for civil and political rights, for the establishment of truly democratic and responsible institutions, and for the emancipation of their respective nations.

Above all, they were seeking recognition of the people of Lower and Upper Canada as nations capable of taking control of their own future. Any colony hopes one day to become the master of its own political and economic destiny. In 1840, the Act of Union completely denied our existence, "a people without history", it was said. The confederative pact of 1867 seemed to want to establish a relationship based on the equality of two founding peoples, but in the history of this country, the francophone nation of North America has been confined to the status of an ethnic group, only a little harder to assimilate than other immigrants.

The Patriotes reflected the awareness of French-speaking Canadians that they were a different nation. They wanted to obtain recognition of this fact from London and the other citizens of Canada. However, the definition of Canada in the Constitution Act, 1982, still does not reflect the reality of two founding peoples in Canadian society.

The second goal was the establishment of truly democratic institutions. More specifically, the Patriotes demanded the establishment of the principle of responsible government or, in other words, the creation of an executive consisting primarily of members of the House of Assembly and responsible to it, that is, accountable to the people rather than to the British Crown.

Thanks to the action of the Patriotes and Reformers, we have inherited a system of responsible government as well as democratic institutions and traditions of such great value to the Western world.

Finally, the third reason for the Patriotes and Reformers to revolt was, in large part, the civil, political and economic liberties that several nations were starting to exercise. These were commendable motives that left their mark on 19th century history. In fact, the late René Lévesque wrote, in a letter dated November 21, 1982, that the 1837-38 events and all the years leading to these events were undeniably motivated by a genuine and powerful democratic surge, coupled with a stronger than ever national assertiveness.

Arguments against recognizing the Patriotes of Lower Canada and the Reformers of Upper Canada do not hold water. It was first argued that adding another public holiday to the calendar would be both costly and unjustified. Allow me to point out that, in the mind of my colleague from Verchères, there was never any question of adding a public holiday or establishing a national patriots' day in Canada. It was for information that the hon. member for Verchères referred, in his motion, to the national patriots' day proclaimed by the Government of Quebec.

They then said that the violence associated with the 1837 rebellion should not be condoned. Fine, but we must remember that the Patriotes and Reformers expressed their grievances and demands in pamphlets, newspaper articles, mass demonstrations, pleas and speeches in the House of Assembly for many years before some of them took up arms. This motion is not intended to justify or legitimize the 1837-38 rebellion but simply to pay tribute, regardless of these violent events, to these men and women who believed in the need to establish a system of responsible and truly democratic government.

Some of my colleagues rightly pointed out that the Patriotes and Reformers are not the only ones who helped establish a system of responsible government in Canada. Although the Patriotes and Reformers are certainly not the only architects of our system of responsible government, their very significant contribution should not be ignored.

That is why we, in the Official Opposition and the Bloc Quebecois, are proud to support the motion of our colleague from Verchères and to ask this House to approve it without reservation.

[Draft Bill On Quebec Sovereignty, December 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, during the debate on the Quebec referendum process, Bloc Quebecois members were quite surprised by the lack of historical perspective shown by Liberal members as a whole, and more particularly Quebec Liberal MPs.

While they all were quick to condemn the regional consultation process on the draft bill regarding sovereignty, calling it illegitimate and undemocratic, they conveniently forgot that, in 1981, there was no consultation and no referendum, in spite of the nearly unanimous opposition of the Quebec National Assembly to the new Constitution.

They also forgot that the Meech Lake Accord was rejected in 1990 without a referendum and that the parliamentary process leading to the Charlottetown Accord in 1993, which was unequivocally rejected by the people, was flawed.

Obviously, members opposite have a short memory. And yet they are the ones who took part in the unilateral patriation of the Constitution through an undemocratic process.