Gaston Leroux

[Canada Elections Act, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-229, which would amend the Canada Elections Act with respect to registration of political parties.

This bill, which would oblige a political party to put forward candidates in a minimum of seven Canadian provinces that have, in the aggregate, 50 per cent of the population of all the provinces, is, in our opinion, undemocratic and contrary to one of the provisions of the Parliament of Canada Act.

The least that can be said about Bill C-229, introduced by the hon. member for Don Valley North, is that it targets the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party, among others. In our opinion, it is an insult to democracy, as it denies Quebec, a distinct society, the right to its own representatives in the House of Commons. It must be pointed out that the people of Quebec are true believers in democracy.

The hon. member for Don Valley North, in introducing such a bill, shows a very poor knowledge indeed of the Canadian political scene and of its diversity. The social, economic and cultural make-up of Toronto, where the member hails from, does not apply to every part of Canada, to Quebec in particular. It must be pointed out that Quebecers do not, any longer, feel comfortable with the old national parties, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party, whose policies always sought to champion the interests and pursue the objectives of a mythical Canadian nation, with a total disregard for regional specificity.

Quebec chose to be represented by the Bloc Quebecois, and it is certainly not a member from the Toronto region who is going to stand in the way of the political representation of one fifth of the citizens and taxpayers of Canada in the House of Commons.

This bill is completely inconsistent and does not respect Canadian political tradition. Since the passage of the new Canada Elections Act in 1970, there has been provision for the registration of political parties. However, the multi-party system appeared in Canada well before then. As early as 1920, members of other parties began to be elected to the House of Commons in sufficient numbers and with sufficient support and credibility to influence the system.

I would remind the members that, in the 1930s, Social Credit and the Commonwealth Co-operative Federation represented very special interests, with demands and hopes that were not at all national in scope. They were movements formed by Western producers to protest the excessive taxation authority of a highly centralizing federal government. None of them were represented in seven provinces or by a total of 50 per cent of the population of Canada. This is an important point to remember.

In the early 1960s, these movements, which evolved into political parties, became important elements in Canadian party politics, hence the inconsistency and irrelevance of Bill C-229.

In the past, a number of political parties that sprang up on the Canadian scene were limited to a single province. Why then, today, is there a wish to take extreme action and amend the Canada Elections Act, except to stop the democratically elected Bloc Quebecois from demonstrating its repudiation of the old national parties and thus seeking to attain political autonomy. Nothing in the existing elections act mentions the need for a political party to nominate candidates in more than seven provinces to qualify for registration.

The act mentions only that in order to be registered and thus officially recognized nationally, a party must nominate more than 50 candidates, whether in one province or in the whole country, for the purposes of consistency, credibility and visibility.

This bill is a flagrant contradiction of the Parliament of Canada Act regarding the official status of political parties in the House. May I remind the member for Don Valley North that there is a rule whereby a political party must have at least 12 members elected to be recognized in this House.

Therefore, I ask the hon. member: How is it possible to recognize, in the House of Commons, a party which might not even be registered at the next general election? Even if the Elections Act requires that a given party nominate at least fifty candidates to be registered-which increases the probability of it being present in at least seven provinces-we consider that Bill C-229 is in net violation of the Parliament of Canada Act and the Canada Elections Act. In 1990, although the House had by then 295 seats, 12 members were still enough to be recognized as a party. The New Democratic Party's current status is a case in point: it wanted to be recognized, but it failed.

Let us be clear, the inclusion of such provisions in the Elections Act would mean the end of the multiparty system within the Canadian electoral system and the emergence of a "one-way" political system in which two parties, largely dominated by two parliamentary executives, would alternate serving the same interests and the same vision of a highly centralized Canada.

I should add that this bill lends credence to the argument that Canadian diversity is just a myth and that the distinctiveness of the Quebec society is gradually eroding. This is what we read recently in the Globe and Mail . That editorial said that Canadian society was one of the most homogeneous in the world. This is not what was reflected in the results of the last general election. In fact, the real myth is the notion of Canadian nationhood; to believe that one day there will be only one culture from coast to coast is ludicrous.

We could say that somehow the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois are the political arm of Quebec's culture, fighting to protect its originality and distinctiveness.

We believe that Bill C-229 introduced by the member for Don Valley North is a sham since it does not take into account cultural diversity or the legitimate position of the party forming the Official Opposition. I will remind you, Mr. Speaker, that as the opposition we have behaved in a responsible manner and according to parliamentary rules. We have dealt with issues of interest to Quebec and Canada and used question period with efficiency and respect, no matter the issue. We have proven to be efficient, transparent and respectful of fundamental democratic principles.

Therefore, we strongly denounce the bill introduced by the member for Don Valley North as being undemocratic in its very intent.

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

As my hon. colleague just said, it is true, Mr. Speaker, that some progress has been made and that individuals have co-operated with federal agencies in that area, but the fact is that nothing really happened. I cannot answer yes to his question. Directives and standards applied within federal agencies are never quite in sync with standards applied elsewhere. So, civil servants are always on business trips, travelling throughout the country to meet their counterparts and say: Your standard does not meet mine. We will have to meet again next week, because I have to go over this with my boss and see what can be done.

This is not only duplication, but also a waste of human resources and money.

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I did mention in my speech that this is not covered by the Constitution. The involvement of the federal government in regional development is only due to its spending power and is not enshrined in the Constitution.

The regional development initiatives taken by the Quebec government in the last 10 years have resulted in more co-operation between all the major economic, social, health and education stakeholders and a learning process during socio-economic summits, followed by consultations, which ensure that the reform introduced by Liberal minister Picotte, in Quebec, really led to some money transfers to the regions.

The current situation is best described as follows: the regions can decide and have real budgets. What we want now is to go beyond tax transfers and have the power to levy taxes through regional county municipalities. That would give us a real tax base and enable us to make real decisions and solve regional problems which would have been analyzed at once by people in the regions. So, as you see, tax points are important.

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to remind the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine that, as regional development critic for the Official Opposition, I am not without experience. I worked in that field. If the hon. member knows his area, he will acknowledge that tens, hundreds of people in his region, his RCM, took part in the development of strategic plans for their area, in the analysis of strengths and weaknesses in the riding and the region. The results were then discussed at the regional council level and prioritized before inclusion into a concrete regional development plan. This is what I call working with people, not bureaucrats.

What I would like to stress to the hon. member, who is long on rhetoric, is that our main concern is to ensure that the proper regional development organizations in Quebec are recognized, region by region, and to ensure also that the central government, in Ottawa, recognizes Quebec's intention to decentralize its services towards the regions, bringing them closer to the people.

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

Ask your question.

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate as the member for Richmond-Wolfe and official critic for regional development. As such, it is my privilege to second the motion by my colleague from Trois-Rivières that we refrain from supporting second reading of the bill because it does not stop program duplication and overlap and fails to recognize that Quebec alone is responsible for its regional development.

Bill C-46, an act to establish the Department of Industry, does, I must admit, reflect some desire on the part of the government to rationalize its operations. It is also interesting to see that the Department of Industry is given a legislative mandate and that the legislation defining the former Department of Industry, Science and Technology and Investment Canada has been amalgamated with the legislation to establish the Department of Industry.

However, I was astonished to see that in Part II of the bill, the minister's powers also extend to regional development in Ontario and Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois is strenuously opposed to this centralizing action by the federal government. We emphatically disagree with the new powers and responsibility of the Department of Industry to formulate and implement policies,

plans and integrated federal approaches with respect to regional development in Quebec, as indicated in section 9 (a) .

We also decry the powers enabling the minister to lead and co-ordinate the activities of the Government of Canada in the establishment of co-operative relationships with Ontario and Quebec and with business, labour and other public and private bodies as stipulated under clause 9(1)(c). By passing and implementing this bill respecting the Department of Industry, the Liberal government is flying in the face of Quebec's fundamental claim to manage its own development.

I would remind the members of this House that regional economic development is a residual jurisdiction and therefore not enshrined in the Constitution. Because of its power respecting economic planning, Quebec is demanding exclusive authority in this area. Ever since the Quiet Revolution, we deem the federal government's infringement in this jurisdiction that is exclusive to Quebec to be totally unacceptable and inadmissible.

The Liberal government must withdraw from this sphere of action and transfer to Quebec regional development funding in a fair and equitable manner. The sterile competition between Quebec and Ottawa regarding regional development and the policies of the Federal Office of Regional Development are costly, as you know, and result in overlapping due to the duplication of decision-making centres.

This maze of jurisdictions consumes so much energy that none is left to deal with the real problems. In the meantime, the money does not go where it should. There is an obvious contradiction in the claim by the Liberal government to the effect that it wants to eliminate overlapping while it makes sure with this bill that overlapping will continue to exist.

Regional economic development is an area which the federal government has taken over through its spending power, without taking into account Quebec's desire to take full responsibility for it. To conclude, I will say that I support and second the motion by my colleague from Trois-Rivières denouncing federal involvement in Quebec's regional development.

I would like to take advantage of the few minutes allotted to me in this debate to raise two basic points which are particularly relevant to the dynamics of regional development in Quebec. Let us first review briefly the federal involvement in regional development in that province. I will then deal in greater detail with the Quebec regional development policies which are clearly superior to any other policy developed elsewhere in Canada in that respect, this being said without false modesty.

As the Bloc Quebecois critic for regional development, I ask this House the following question: what has the federal government accomplished in this respect? Between 1982 and 1987, DRIE, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion, the federal agency responsible for regional development in Quebec adopted a sterile centralizing policy.

The regions were simply excluded from the financial assistance application development and evaluation process. Often, useless programs were subsidized, while initiatives having meaningful local value were not. The DREI decision-making process was dominated by sectorial concerns, with the result that more funds and energy were devoted to industrial development in central regions than to regional development.

When this became obvious, the federal government claims it reoriented its policy through a new strategy based on master agreements. This course of action proved no better than the previous one. Our unemployment rates bear witness to that. According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, in 1993, unemployment cost the Canadian economy over $109 billion. That is what the federal government involvement in the area of regional development has accomplished.

Let us take a look at what the master agreements do. Instead of giving the regional development resource envelopes directly to Quebec, allowing for income tax points to be repatriated, the federal government withdraws and cuts back budgets to such an extent that a structural vacuum is created with respect to regional development in Quebec. The Economic and Regional Development Agreement, or ERDA, for the 1994-2004 decade proves the point. It has not yet been signed and will apparently never be.

Last summer, the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec refused to sign the agreement, arguing that the time was not right in view of the upcoming elections in Quebec and considering it had signed an agreement respecting the free movement of goods between provinces the same week. Too much work for the same people in one week. That is how serious FORD is in Quebec; it only brings confusion to Quebec regional development.

The FORD structure has been impossible to define ever since it was founded. It is always being reorganized. In short, it is like Jell-O. Now that the ERDA is no longer in effect, we are facing a structural vacuum. It would be very effective and much more serious for the Liberal government to recognize Quebec's jurisdiction over regional development. Accordingly, the government should transfer all monies set aside for this purpose.

It would be in the federal government's interest to admit that its involvement in regional development is unacceptable. The economic foundation of outlying regions-and they are different from major centres-is decaying, the social fabric is disintegrating, the rural exodus is continuing and young people are the first to leave their regions. The number of demographically shrinking municipalities has risen alarmingly in the last 25

years so that it is now higher than the number of growing communities.

The federal government's current involvement in regional development is therefore most unfair, as the figures from the FORDQ itself tell us. Atlantic provinces receive $920 in spending per resident, Western Canada, $240 and Quebec, $230. As far as umbrella agreements such as ERDA are concerned, the federal government's record of involvement in Quebec is disastrous. In 1987, the total was $431 per capita in the Maritimes, $259 in Western Canada and $64 in Quebec.

I should also point out that in the remaining subsidiary agreements with good results, the federal government backed out of $75 million worth of financial commitments. I refer specifically to the withdrawal of funds for the Eastern Plan, which affects over 5,800 timber owners. However, since the federal government intervened in an area of provincial jurisdiction, we demand that the funds be repatriated in the form of tax points to be managed by Quebec.

Let us look at reality: cuts worth $70 million are called for in the finance minister's February 1994 budget. Quebec regional development cutbacks will be spread over the next three years: $14 million in 1994-95, $32 million in 1995-96, and $24 million in 1996-97. A FORD internal document issued at the same time as the budget states that the objective pursued is to cut financial commitments by half. Since the 1993-94 fiscal year, the financial commitment has averaged some $20 million a month. The same document says that as of March 1, 1994, FORD's funding level should be reduced to $10 million a year.

The federal government is leaving the field of economic development in Quebec and I want to mention the cuts in transfers to companies. In 1994, Quebec will lose $70 million in funding; this situation is intolerable. We demand that funding be transferred to Quebec and that Quebec alone manage its development and its regional development organizations.

From another perspective, we can say that the federal government's involvement in development is just a way to show its presence. It is a way of showing the Canadian flag with everything it is doing in all sectors of the economy and in all the present constitutional fields. With its involvement, the federal government increases its visibility but its action remains ineffective.

FORD's action is not based on a comprehensive vision of local development. It more often takes a scattergun approach. From reading some FORD documents, we get the feeling that it is a federal propaganda agency in Quebec. Thus, in a document published in January on a new approach for programs concerning small and medium-sized businesses in Quebec, we read that FORD is well placed to represent the federal government to small and medium-sized businesses and, a little further, that these specific agreements are intended to establish a properly co-ordinated federal presence.

So, the Federal Office for Regional Development becomes the co-ordinator of the federal activity in an area of provincial jurisdiction. This duplication is interesting in that it says much about the centralizing objectives of the federal government. From now on, it is clear that, under the cover of FORD, every federal department wants to extend the scope of its activities in Quebec.

This is why Part II of Bill C-46 includes a set of specific objectives regarding FORD and regional development in Quebec. This is a case of shameless interference in a Quebec constitutional jurisdiction. The new mandate of FORD is clear: that office gives up any type of core agreement to concentrate instead on specific agreements. While freeing itself of financial commitments, FORD takes on the responsibility of an information broker for small and medium businesses, thus limiting its activities to searching for new markets, promoting research and development as well as export markets for regional businesses, thereby duplicating the role of already existing organizations.

FORD is fulfilling the responsibilities of already existing organizations such as industrial commissioner offices and development corporations in several regions. This duplication is confirmed by an act. Why yet another duplication of institutions and structures? Why this waste of energy and human resources? The federal system is the initiator of a series of disastrous money-wasting schemes which are largely responsible for this country's excessive debt.

In Quebec, the future of regional development is dependent on respecting Quebec's jurisdiction in that all-important sector. In our province, the future is contingent upon a decentralization of power. Does the word decentralization suggest anything to you? I am referring to a decentralization in favour of regional decision-making levels which are well aware of their situation, including regional county municipalities, which form the first level of government. The Quebec government recognized the primary decision-making role to be given to regional development councils to ensure that regions would have control over decisions which directly affect the socio-economic life of their communities.

The federal government should pledge to withdraw from that sector and not interfere with the priorities of the strategic planning done by every regional county municipality and every region in Quebec. The creation of regional county municipalities by the Parti Quebecois in 1980 was one of the first elements of the current regional development structure in Quebec. The first socio-economic summits of 1985, as well as the reform undertaken by Liberal minister Yvon Picotte, are other important elements of this very particular structure which led Quebec to the creation of regional development councils. These councils have the mandate of planning, co-ordinating and programming

the development and to ensure joint accountability with local authorities and the provincial government.

In short, these councils are regional consultative and decision-making assemblies. Because of its dynamic role, regional economic development in Quebec is at the centre of the issue of global development in that province. In 1988, the Government of Quebec developed and published its own regional development policy that, even before the Federal Office of Regional Development existed, concentrated on the development of regional enterprises. Its goal, to stimulate entrepreneurship and create jobs in the regions, was a distinct departure from the traditional approach that emphasized the construction of public utilities and infrastructures. There is nothing particularly new or innovative about the new focus of the Federal Office of Regional Development.

Once again, the federal government is merely setting up the same kind of regional development infrastructures that already exist in Quebec, and it has clearly confirmed it has no intention and no desire to remove overlap and respect Quebec's wishes.

In a world where free trade has lowered trade barriers and exposed regional economies to fiercer competition, the new government in Quebec wants to promote local responsibility for regional development. The policy of the Parti Quebecois now in power is clear and unambiguous. It provides for a new sharing of responsibilities by the Government of Quebec with regional governments represented by the l'Union des municipalités du Québec and l'Union des municipalités régionales de comté du Québec among others.

From now on, regional development in Quebec is to be focused on the authority of the regions, a far cry from the endless hesitation of a federal government that does not know where it is going. The Parizeau government has made regional decentralization a priority, and the federal government should be aware of that.

The policy of the new government in Quebec is clear: decentralization will be the responsibility of authorities who are accountable and must include autonomous resources and fiscal powers. The regional municipality will become the decision-making centre and, as such, the new basis for regional and social economic development in Quebec.

To deal with the various aspects of regional issues, a planning and consultation instrument is absolutely necessary, and so we have the Conseil régional de développement, the Regional Development Council. If the federal government will not recognize what is being done in Quebec to give the government's decision-makers the responsibility, funding and power to make those decisions, it is not on the right track and merely confirms its decision to centralize all powers in the centre of the country and ignore what is being done in Quebec.

Finally, we demand transfer of funding and full recognition of Quebec's exclusive responsibility for regional development.

[French-Speaking Community, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us how he can boast about his action plan when no funding has been provided and no new program has been set up?

[French-Speaking Community, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

After deciding not to implement a real comprehensive policy for the development of the French-speaking community, despite the request of the Federation of Francophone and Acadian Communities, the Minister of Heritage finally brought forth a policy. The policy that emerged from his drawing board is nothing more than an action plan to meet his own obligations under part VII of the Official Languages Act.

Can the minister tell us how and in what way his action plan will develop the francophone community?

[Financial Markets, June 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, some individuals delight in insinuating that the political situation in Canada and Quebec is the cause of the instability affecting the Canadian bond market.

It is important to set the record straight and to say that nothing could be further from the truth. Japanese investors sold off large numbers of Canadian bonds which they owned in March, after the budget was tabled and well before the Leader of the Official Opposition made his trips abroad. The bond divestment was prompted by the negative reaction of financial markets to the Liberal government's budget.

Mr. Masakazu Mizutani, Vice President and Treasurer of the Bank of Tokyo in Toronto, confirms that investors have eased up considerably on their sales of Canadian bonds and that today, "they do not have many left to sell".

In short, the hike in interest rates and the massive divestment of Canadian bonds in March are the result of ill-conceived budgetary and monetary policies on the part of the Liberal government.

[Quebec Sovereignty, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on his own initiative, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and Deputy Government Whip circulated a petition to silence the Official Opposition. That petition, which more or less sought to censure discussions in this House, must be strongly denounced as being fundamentally undemocratic.

Let us not forget that close to two million Quebec voters democratically expressed their support for our option, an option which we never tried to hide from the public, and that it is not only our right but our duty to talk about sovereignty for Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, we will continue to talk about sovereignty, in compliance with the democratic mandate which we received last October 25 from Quebecers, who gave us more than two-thirds of the province's seats and made us the Official Opposition. We now have confirmation of the intolerance and pettiness of the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and the Liberals.