Nic Leblanc

[Speech From The Throne, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate and pay my respects to the great member for Gaspé, a devoted member who has proven his interest in the citizens of the Gaspé Peninsula.

He did not have only negative criticism to give in his speech. I notice he also suggested several solutions to improve the welfare of the citizens of that area, particularly regarding fishing. He also said that if Quebec had full jurisdiction over fishing, the people of the Gaspé Peninsula would not be in the terrible slump they are presently experiencing. As he put it so well, the Gaspé Peninsula is probably the most beautiful region of Quebec. It might be a bit cold, but it is still a most beautiful area which I had the opportunity to visit as recently as last year.

To the hon. member for Gaspé, I want to say that listened to his speech with great interest. I congratulate him and urge him to keep up the good work.

[Speech From The Throne, January 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I must congratulate the member and minister on his election in Laval-Ouest. This time he was luckier than in 1988, when he was my opponent in Longueuil. I am pleased to ask him some questions in accordance with his responsibilities as Minister of Canadian Heritage.

First, as he spoke about multiculturalism, it would seem that multiculturalism has not necessarily been a success, because we seem to have created ghettos between cultures instead of promoting the integration of citizens. We know that it takes about twice as long to integrate new arrivals in Canada as it does in the United States.

There is definitely a major problem with multiculturalism. I know that in Montréal at the moment there are conflicts between different cultures and it is my impression, and also the opinion of some experts, that multiculturalism is something that has created ghettos instead of promoting integration.

Second, he also spoke about creators and copyright. I think that Canadian legislation may not protect creators' copyright adequately. If we want to make it possible for our creators to do more, we must First protect what they create. We must promote what they create; that is how we are going to improve productivity and create new products from both the cultural and economic points of view.

My third question has to do with the national parks. We know that for a long time Quebec has been calling for equity where national parks are concerned. We do not have our fair share of parks, and each time Quebec asks for new parks, there always seem to be a lot of problems. However, we have great open spaces in which excellent parks could be created, but it never happens.

What is the problem, and will the minister make the necessary efforts to ensure that we in Quebec can have our fair share of national parks?

[Speech From The Throne, January 24th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the hon. member on her appointment as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Revenue.

I am somewhat surprised by the fact that she has failed to mention that the Liberal Party has just increased the tax burden of small wage earners, when for years, they have been criticizing the party in power for imposing taxes on the poor. Shortly after they were elected, we realized that they were increasing the tax burden of the unemployed, and particularly of small businesses.

I do hope that as assistant to the revenue minister, the hon. member will remove this unfair burden on small wage earners due to the increase in unemployment insurance premiums. The government squeezes a further $800 million out of workers and, the next day, announces that it is going to give municipalities $995 million for their infrastructure. What is the government doing? It is reducing the purchasing power of the people, that is what it is doing. Consequently, it is slowing down economic growth while putting an equivalent amount into the infrastructure program.

The government toots its own horn, bragging about this great program which is going to create jobs, stimulate the economy, while it increases the burden of workers by about the same amount by raising unemployment insurance premiums.

Madam Speaker, I have this question for the member: where is the government going with that process I would call dishonest?

[Speech From The Throne, January 24th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I can see from the speech the hon. member for Ahuntsic just made that he understands full well what the infrastructure program put forward by the federal government is all about. First of all, we have asked and we continue to ask that the money the federal government wants to spend be directly sent to Quebec. Hence, the provincial and municipal governments in Quebec would be able to effectively and responsibly manage this money according to their priorities. Maybe then there will be some money left for the real infrastructure needs of Quebec.

Again, the federal government is directly impinging on a jurisdiction of which it has no knowledge and on which it has no right, since, according to the Canadian Constitution, the federal government has no right over municipal affairs. But now, in a roundabout way, it will succeed in meddling directly in municipal affairs. For the first time in Canadian history, the federal government will directly impinge on municipal affairs. It is a shame, but the federal government keeps doing it.

The Liberal government at that time was the most centralist of all federal governments in Canada's history, and again, with this policy, this program, it will manage to stick its nose in the

sewers and under the bridges of our municipalities. Moreover, it will continue to line its pockets by awarding its own engineers and contractors all the small infrastructure contracts for the municipalities.

It is outrageous and unacceptable. So, the members of the Bloc Quebecois, just like the hon. member for Ahuntsic I am sure, will denounce the fact that the federal government is directly encroaching on the management of municipal infrastructures. One of these days, the federal government will have to recognize that the best way to achieve efficient management and to make municipalities accountable is to withdraw from municipal affairs to avoid overlapping and duplication. As you know, overlapping and duplication are very costly to manage and also very costly in lack of efficiency, in confrontation and other such things.

I do not understand why the federal government, which should know and should understand this, still gets involved in areas that are not of its concern.

It is a shame, Madam Speaker. I denounce it today and I hope that we, as Quebecers, will continue to work hard together so that this does not happen again, considering how terribly high the deficit now is. We have a $500 billion deficit and we know full well that it is due to the fact that the federal government is constantly interfering in areas that should be under provincial jurisdiction, that it is due to the centralization of powers in Ottawa. Canada's deficit began to grow under the Liberal government in 1970 and it has become outrageous. It went from $2 billion in 1970 to about $35 billion in 1984 and now stands at $45 billion. Nevertheless, the federal government insists on centralizing everything and it has even come to the point where it interferes in areas of municipal jurisdiction.

It is absolutely outrageous and I want to ask my colleague from Ahuntsic what he thinks of all that. I think he agrees with me, but I will let him explain in his own words.

[Speech From The Throne, January 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member and I certainly have some comments and especially a few questions for him.

I listened to the speech of the Minister of the Environment, but as I did not have the opportunity to ask her a question, I will ask it of the hon. member who dealt with the same issue, that is the conflict between the Environmental Quality Act passed a few years ago in Quebec and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act passed a few months later. Because of the differences between the two acts, whenever an environmental assessment is required, we must make two, one for the Quebec government and one for Canada.

Here is another example. The top executives of Hydro-Quebec, who want to go ahead with the Grande-Baleine project, realized that they cannot bring to the same table Quebec and federal officials when discussing the environmental assessments to be made. I would therefore like to ask the hon. member whether he could seek from the Minister of the Environment amendments to the act to make it more flexible, so that environmental assessments could meet the needs of both acts, in order to help our companies to expand and go ahead faster with their projects? That way more jobs could be created in Quebec more rapidly.

[Research And Development, January 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Greater Montreal area is the economic heartland of Quebec. There you find the greatest concentrations of industries and jobs. Eighty per cent of the province's R and D activity is conducted in the Montreal area.

But for decades now, the federal government has been neglecting the funding of research and development in Quebec, with the result that Quebec's economy has suffered.

In my capacity as a member from the greater Montreal area, I want this House to know that I will continue to keep a watchful eye on this because Montreal should be getting its fair share of federal R and D funds for employment and equity.

[Speech From The Throne, January 24th, 1994]

The hon. member for Yukon said earlier-and I felt somewhat under attack-that some members of this House want to destroy this country while others want to build it.

The point is that the federal system has been destroying this country for many years. It is not the members of this House but the federal system itself which is destroying the country through duplication of government programs and services. According to the Quebec government, this duplication costs between $2 billion and $3 billion a year. The inefficiency and inconsistency of these programs are very costly as well; the same can be said of contradictory legislation in many cases.

To those who maintain that we are here to destroy the country, I reply that our goal is to help build two countries, but two countries that will work well.

The question I would like to ask the hon. member for Yukon is this: As a member of this House, does she intend to favour and encourage small and medium sized businesses instead of trying to destroy them? It is in that sector that jobs are created.