Pierre Brien

[Poverty, May 10th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have no problem with the federal government talking with the provinces about the problem of poverty. But in Quebec the government has begun implementing various components of a comprehensive family policy. Federal interference that might be detrimental to this policy and this approach would not be welcome.

Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell us whether there will be discussions with Quebec, like those with the other provinces, regarding the right to opt out with full compensation?

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to see—I must point this out for our audience because it is not clear—that the Liberal MPs are the ones refusing to give consent for this bill to be votable.

I would like to thank the hon. members for London West, Calgary East, Vancouver East and West Nova, for having expressed their opinions. I particularly thank the NDP, Reform, and Conservative members who have supported the bill, and in particular the idea of expanding the debate to encompass an examination by parliament of the entire issue of the violence faced by our children.

Since there will be no vote on this bill, the issue will not get to committee by that means. I hope that the members of the justice committee—the majority of them from the party in power—will take it over and address this issue, which has become so terribly timely. We cannot continue to do nothing and to not examine this situation.

In the two or three minutes I have left, I also wish to thank Mrs. Ayotte and all those in her region, in all of Quebec, and in all of Canada, who have supported and encouraged her. I want her to know that today is far from being the end of the matter. We took an hour to discuss it here in the House today, but things will not stop there. I will continue to focus my energies on trying to persuade my colleagues in the House that we must do something. I will also encourage members of the Standing Committee on Justice to initiate the consideration, discussion and public debate of the issue of the violence children are subjected to.

I would also like to respond to the Liberal member, who spoke, raising legitimate questions. Is the Criminal Code the most effective way? Care must be taken when the Criminal Code is used. I am very open to this sort of criticism. This is why we want a debate.

However, I think we have to create a criminal offence. Obviously, offences under the Criminal Code are not all the same sort. And they are punished differently. The fact that they come under the Criminal Code does not mean they are judged the same way. Nevertheless, they are criminal offences. Then there are degrees.

We must look closely at the fact that a number of business are aiming their marketing directly at our children. We have to react when these marketing strategies focus on behaviour we consider unacceptable in society, such as violence. We do so with anti-smoking campaigns, where we fight to ensure that young children cannot have access to tobacco products, and with good reason. We must do likewise to prevent companies from directing at young people messages inciting them to violence and encouraging them to use these products and to behave this way.

To those who still have doubts and are saying “No, we must not act”, we put the following question. One can rightfully argue that children are also influenced by their parents, their family, their environment and other factors, which are not necessarily regulated by the government. But are the members across the way sure that all available means have been used? Are they sure nothing more could be done?

If there is any doubt in our minds, then we should continue the debate and expand it to include the general public, which has something to say about this issue.

I want to thank and congratulate Mrs. Ayotte and her group, all the stakeholders who supported her, including those who sponsored and financed the representations, the university that provided the research staff, and all those who were involved—I will not name them, because there are many—and those who supported this initiative, including the hon. members from the various political parties who spoke to the issue today.

I hope further consideration will be given to this issue and that action will be taken. We should go the extra mile and hold a broad public debate to find out whether the federal government is using all the means available to it to try to further restrict these messages of violence to which our children are confronted on a daily basis.

[Criminal Code, May 3rd, 1999]

moved that Bill C-374, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Customs Tariff (prohibited toys), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time since I was elected to the House in 1993 that I have introduced a bill. I introduced this bill, but it was inspired by people in my riding, who took up this fight. I will describe this later in greater detail.

I will first explain what the thrust of this bill is before talking about a broader problem, namely the violence our children are exposed to on a daily basis in society at large. As lawmakers we have to ask ourselves whether we provide the best possible framework to regulate this whole area.

The purpose of my bill is to ban the manufacture, importation, marketing and sale of toys with instructions—and this is the significant point—that clearly encourage violent behaviour. I make this distinction because the toy might appear innocent enough, but the instructions are not.

This is what happened to one of my constituents who bought a doll, more specifically a troll, for her children. At first glance, on the shelf, the toy was quite appealing, and there did not seem to be a problem. Then one day she saw the instructions accompanying the doll, which said “To keep your troll happy, beat it, shut it up in the dark, deny it all possible happiness” and so on.

This is where the problem begins, because it is totally bad taste. It is inappropriate even and unacceptable that this sort of message accompanying toys should appear on the market without impunity.

Obviously, a person faced with this situation would react first by saying “That must not be legal. I am going to find out”. Ms. Ayotte, who is a resident of my riding, therefore checked around and finally discovered that it was a perfectly legitimate practice and nothing prevented it. That led her to give thought to the greater problem of violence in general.

I come back to my bill, which concerns toys specifically. However, I would like there to be a much broader debate than just the focus of my bill, because the problem of violence is much broader.

My bill aims to introduce a prohibition in the Criminal Code, to create a criminal offence for these kinds of instructions. I will read the description of Bill C-374 in the summary accompanying it:

The purpose of this enactment is to prohibit the sale to persons under the age of eighteen years, the offer for sale in a place to which persons under the age of eighteen years reasonably have access or the importation into Canada of a doll together with a label or writing urging any person to mistreat the doll or cause it to suffer injuries or degrading acts, or the packaging of which contains such a label or writing.

Why was the word doll included in the bill? It was included because words have meaning in our language, and the word “doll” means an object with a human form. So, obviously, the link is even more direct when a person is encouraged to inflict injuries on or treat in a degrading manner an object with a human form.

Probably far more can be done. My approach is aimed at banning this practice, using a specific example. I am sure, however, that a number of improvements can be made to this bill.

It can be broadened to encompass all toys, although the point needs to be made that a toy per se may be relatively inoffensive. The problem lies far more with the use a child is invited to make of it.

Coming back to the action taken by some people in my riding, Mrs. Ayotte, who has five young children, set up a team, with community support. The university provided researchers. She started up a petition, which has taken on the form of a giant jigsaw puzzle, and which people were invited to sign to indicate their wish to see society take steps to decrease the violence with which our children are confronted.

To date, the petition initiated by Mrs. Ayotte has been signed by 400,000 people. The puzzle-petition, which has turned into the project “Joue-moi la paix”, has been exhibited on two occasions, one of them before this House. Unfortunately, when they came to put it together in front of parliament, it was election time, and most MPs were unable to see it.

It was also assembled in the riding of Rouyn—Noranda, and at that time all necessary steps were taken to get it into the record book, as it is the biggest jigsaw puzzle ever put together in the world. In the updated version of the Guinness Book of Records , the biggest puzzle in the world is associated with the “Joue-moi la paix” project.

The mayor of Rouyn was in attendance. So was our bishop, Mgr. Jean-Guy Hamelin. A large number of citizens came that day, which became a day of celebration in Rouyn-Noranda. They came to sign this puzzle, if they had not already done so, or to see it being assembled.

The group had a much loftier goal than my bill, and it conducted much broader research. In the process, some became more knowledgeable. Mrs. Ayotte met with officials from the Department of Justice to submit her project to the government, asking that steps be taken to reduce the number of violent stimuli to which children are confronted on a daily basis.

Should we not be concerned about the violence shown through video games and on television? A debate was held in the House on this issue. A petition signed by a large number of people was also initiated by a young woman, following a tragedy that had triggered a debate on the violence shown on television. The government followed up on this to see if additional measures should be taken.

We need only think of recent events in our society. The tragedy that occurred in Denver, Colorado, where two young men entered a high school and killed several of their fellow students, is still fresh in our minds. The same thing happened last week, in Alberta, where a young man was killed and another injured because teenagers entered the school with weapons. It was terrible.

Obviously, there is no legislation, regulation or measure that can guarantee us protection from this sort of catastrophe indefinitely. Far from it. However, particularly in light of recent events, we should ask ourselves if we are doing all we can as individuals, as parents, and also as members of parliament, as the lawmakers of our society.

We can be glad that there has been much less overall violence in Quebec and in Canada than in the United States, for instance, but we are not isolated from trends that originate there and eventually come our way.

The research showed that most of the toys I mentioned originated in the United States, but they still end up in our stores. With the way companies operate, and distribution networks and free trade zones, the marketplace takes in all of North America, the whole world. It is not true that, because they are made somewhere else, we are completely free from them. They end up in our businesses and they have an impact.

At the dawn of new phenomena such as the Internet or satellite TV, we will have less and less control over these things, in the near future. We will not be able to deny people direct access to American channels. We will be able to regulate less and less. It will come directly on the computer, which will be hooked up to the TV. People will make their own choices about what they want to watch.

What can we do? I would like to have the Standing Committee on Justice consider not specifically the focus of the bill but to consider what we can do. Can we do something?

There are experts in the field. We have seen a little more of this with the events in Colorado and Alberta, in the information programming on television and in all sorts of public debates. Questions have been raised, phenomena discussed. There are people who are experts in this area.

Is a child really influenced growing up in this environment? Maybe yes, maybe no. I do not claim to know for sure. I think it does have an influence.

Why not debate the matter with these experts, who will give us their opinion. It seems to me we study enough things here, for a question of such importance to be studied, particularly after the recent events.

Avoiding demagoguery and remaining realistic, I am not trying to tell the government that what I am proposing is a magic solution, far from it. This is not a simple or easy issue. We can never be fully protected from phenomena or actions that are violent, gratuitous, incomprehensible and unexplainable. They result in individuals feeling so desperate and aggressive that they can go as far as killing others. This kind of occurrence can never be completely prevented. It will probably never be fully understood, either, but there are a certain number of things that can be done.

Within my very specific bill, it seems to me that what I am asking for is not unrealistic. Moreover, when a toy, which may be merely totally tasteless in itself, also comes with instructions which, as the bill says, urges any person to adopt a violent behaviour or commit degrading acts, appropriate action must be taken against those behind the marketing of these toys. We are not talking of disproportionate penalties to be made part of the Criminal Code. The bill speaks of maximum fines of $25,000 for manufacturers and, in very serious cases, a sentence not to exceed six months. This would not be the first time penalties would be applied, but it would not be a bad thing to send a message to those tempted to make money from such gadgets.

The message would be: “In Canada, the Criminal Code contains provisions that prevent you from doing that, so take care”. Public pressure will always be very useful. The companies that will be judged negatively by the consumers because they sell such products will suffer the consequences. The vast majority of people find this unacceptable.

Moreover, this measure would make it illegal to do such things. The price to pay would be very high, not just in terms of the fine imposed, but also because of the negative publicity that would follow. If this bill became the law, it would be a deterrent.

Before concluding, I should point out one thing. I am not saying that this is the sole responsibility of government.

As parents—I myself am a young parent—we have a responsibility to our children. The best guarantee against all this is certainly the way we approach these issues with our children. The family setting, friends and the environment in which children grow are more effective than most laws.

Still, it is appropriate to start a debate on this issue and to expand it to allow people to express their views on it.

Unfortunately, my bill was not selected as a votable item. This means that, at the end of this hour, we will have heard nice speeches but little action will be taken. I am hoping this bill can be reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice. The committee could, of course, conduct this review on its own terms, but the best guarantee would be to make the bill a votable item in the House, so that it would be referred to a committee between second and third reading.

I am asking all the members of this House—even though this is not very appealing, since it only launches the debate—to give their unanimous consent to put this bill to a vote after debating it.

[Millennium Scholarships, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister said he had not had the time to read the letter. So we will read him a passage from it, which says:

We propose to you that you identify a government negotiator to represent the federal government, one who is not associated with the Foundation.

Where does the minister see in the letter it stated that the federal negotiator cannot be an elected representative, such as himself, and why would he not agree to be this negotiator, as the president of the Fédération des étudiants universitaires du Québec asked him yesterday?

[Millennium Scholarships, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, in the matter of the millennium scholarships, the Minister of Human Resources Development, the one with the time to write books but no time to read his mail, has said for months he supports the Gautrin resolution. It is being offered to him again, and he again wants more time to think about it.

Will the minister stop hiding and playing a game of semantics and tell us today whether or not he agrees with the unanimous proposal by the leaders of the parties in the Quebec National Assembly to negotiate government to government to break this Ottawa-created impasse?

[Preclearance Act, April 30th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Bill S-22. Far from being controversial, this piece of legislation will make things easier for a number of travelers. It is in keeping with what has been done so far with regard to customs preclearance.

On May 8, 1974, the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America entered into an agreement on air transport preclearance. The purpose of that agreement was to speed up and facilitate trade between the two countries.

Bill S-22 goes along the same line, but is aimed at broadening this statutory authority, on a reciprocal basis, to facilitate cross-border movement by other means of transportation. To this end Bill S-22 authorizes the United States to administer in Canada provisions of American law related to the admission of travelers and the importation of goods into the United States, except for criminal law. It is important to note that criminal law is excluded from this agreement.

The administration of such provisions of American law in Canada will be subject to Canadian law, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Finally, the bill provides that the government may, by order in council, restrict the scope of these provisions if, in its opinion, the United States do not accord Canada the same privileges. There is therefore an element of reciprocity in this agreement aimed at facilitating movement, both ways. If ever this was not the case, the bill contains provisions allowing the government to rectify the situation by order in council.

Canada has allowed U.S. federal inspection services to preclear air passengers on its territory since the 1950s. Preclearance refers to the measures by American federal inspection services in relation to travellers and goods leaving Canada for the United States.

As others have already pointed out, these measures were made official in 1974 with the Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States on Air Transport Preclearance.

Under that agreement, there are now preclearance services affecting some 8.5 million passengers at the following Canadian airports: Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, of course at Dorval. However, since that agreement was signed, there have been certain changes in Canadian law, particularly the introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As well, there have been changes in border procedures because of the rapid increase in cross-border traffic and technological advances.

The official powers set out in Bill S-22 and the changes to the 1974 agreement would make it possible to exercise more appropriate control over the present border situation, while at the same time protecting travellers under Canadian law. American federal inspection services would be in a position to examine and seize goods and apply certain monetary penalties under American border control legislation.

American legislation would be administered only in designated preclearance areas and would be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other applicable Canadian legislation.

No provision of American law that would be criminal under Canadian law may be administered in Canada. Criminal matters must be dealt with by Canadian authorities under Canadian law.

At the present time, international passengers travelling to the United States from a Canadian airport with preclearance services must go through Canadian customs and immigration services before going to an American preclearance officer.

The preclearance in transit planned for Canadian airports with approved services would enable passengers from third countries to pass directly through American preclearance services, thus undergoing a single inspection.

In transit preclearance services have been in operation since June 1997 in Vancouver international airport as a pilot project. Furthermore, if in transit preclearance services were operational, airlines would be obliged, before entering Canada, to provide preclearance officers with specific information on those of their passengers going on to the United States.

It has been agreed that the provisions of this bill would be matched with reciprocal provisions on the American side so that Canada may preclear in the United States within the context of American customs and immigration laws.

In general, that is not a problem. There is only one small concern at this point, with respect to the transfer of information the airlines will have to provide. I know the minister referred to this in his speech. Obviously, some care must be taken to ensure the airlines provide information on passengers in accordance with the provisions of privacy legislation.

So long as this is done properly for this part of the bill, the rest will only make the lives of travellers easier and improve cross border travel.

In this context, there is no doubt that we will support this bill, which, be it said in passing, has already been discussed and debated in the other House. Although it is certainly not our first choice and we might question its existence, much of the work has been done on this bill from the Senate.

I encourage my colleagues to support it, but to be careful, because it involves a reciprocal agreement. We must make sure that the Americans act as effectively as us, in putting all the measures necessary in place. If everything goes well, it will not be necessary to rely on the provisions of the bill that provide for the use of an order to restrict the scope of this agreement.

Assuming everything goes well, this legislation would make life simpler for travellers, given the increasing volume of business between Canada and the United States and, in the case that concerns us, between Quebec and the United States. As members know, the United States is now Quebec's main trading partner. A lot of goods are being traded and many individuals must travel to the United States to do business. Many companies with multiple interests have facilities or do business in Quebec, in Canada, in the United States and elsewhere in the world, and transit through our country and, in this case, often through Dorval airport.

This concludes my remarks on Bill S-22. I will be very interested to hear what other members have to say. I ask everyone to support the bill, while being vigilant concerning the confidentiality of the information that will be transmitted by airline companies, so as to prevent any abuse. The private nature of that information is a concern to many people, in this era of modern technology and massive transfers of personal information.

This process must not lead to abuse. It must be implemented in compliance with our own laws to avoid, for example, situations such as the one in which the Minister of Human Resources Development found himself, with the cards distributed to travellers to obtain information on employment insurance recipients.

Even though public opinion may support such a measure, we must still comply with the law. In this particular case, there was a problem and the courts strongly condemned the practice, from the point of view of its compliance with Canadian law.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I do not have a lot of time left, but we could have talked, for example, about the environment of pulp and paper companies or others that have both the federal and the provincial standards. Sometimes the higher standards are federal and sometimes they are Quebec's. If a criminal offence is involved, the weight is in favour of the federal standard. Conversely, if it is a civil matter, the weight is in favour of the provincial standard. It is a total administrative mess.

However, as regards what my colleague from Charlevoix was saying recently, a well-intentioned individual working for the federal government at home with the Department of Human Resources Development said to the stakeholders “The regional office analyzes that”. I knew that by “regional office” she meant Montreal. But the people in my region, when they heard “regional office” understood it was managed in Rouyn-Noranda, because that is where the regional office is.

So at one point I spoke up and said “We will clarify one thing. In Ottawa, when you say 'region', you mean Quebec entirely. If you say Abitibi—Témiscamingue, you are referring to—” I would not even use an adjective for fear of having it used against me. For us, Abitibi-Témiscamingue is our region. We would like the government to think this way.

What sets us apart is the number of mines we have. There were tax incentives, which still exist, but have been cut considerably by the federal government, which led to a lot of exploration. Northern Quebec still has extraordinary potential for mining exploration, but the reduction in the worth of natural resources, particularly metals, and the Bre-X crisis and other incidents, have discouraged exploration.

The fact that the federal government did not restore that program in its original form was very prejudicial to our region. When that flow-through shares program was at its peak, unemployment in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region was at 7%. However, from the federal government's perspective, a tax measure that applies to just one region of Quebec clearly does not have enough of an impact to justify an extended program.

This is unfortunate because that initiative was specifically targeted to the needs of our region. I could list many more that do not specifically meet regional needs. It is not the economic development agencies, which often do promotional work, that identify these needs. These agencies exist primarily to sell Ottawa to people in the regions, not to take regional issues and get the federal government to do something about them. There may exceptions, but this is how it works in my region.

[Supply, April 13th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, it is my turn to speak on this opposition day motion by the Reform Party.

I would like to divide the motion into two parts. The first part of the motion condemns the government's failure to address the concerns of the regions of Canada. In Quebec, our region, this failure is only too clear. Our presence here is vivid proof that Quebeckers are deeply dissatisfied with this government and the federal system that governs them.

The second part of the motion, on what should be done to remedy the situation, is a proposal that the government rename the Liberal committee on western alienation the Liberal alienation committee. Even if this proposal might be considered justified, it seems to me that somewhat better wording could have been found to condemn the government's action and suggest to it possible courses of action.

I shall concentrate on the first part of the motion, condemning the government's failure—I would say historic failure—to address the concerns of many of its citizens, and in our case, Quebeckers.

I shall not go over all the constitutional negotiations that have been the subject of dispute and the failure by the federal government to respond to Quebec's demands. There have been many such negotiations, particularly in the past 30 years, and they have one thing in common: regardless of who was negotiating—the federal Liberal or Conservative Party, a Quebec Liberal or Parti Quebecois government—the result has always been the same: failure.

It might be tempting to lay this failure at individuals' doorsteps, but that would not hide the fact that there is a profound problem: an inability to live together or find rules that can govern all of us within a single system.

Efforts to this end have always been based on the concept of Quebec as a province. From the federal government's point of view, the provinces must have a certain character. Though the government is reluctant to say that it sees them as all equal, it does have a very strong tendency to say that it has to avoid special treatment for certain provinces. This has prevented agreements being reached that would have led to an asymmetrical model, more particularly for Quebec, giving it a different constitutional status from the other provinces. The Canadian government has always been too frightened of the reaction from other regions of Canada and too frightened as well that the whole thing would become unmanageable, although it is already extremely difficult to manage.

To come down to brass tacks, this is causing a considerable number of day to day problems for ordinary citizens. I am going to indicate some of these. I will not expand on my examples right now, I will return to them, but I am thinking of the millennium scholarships. There are also secretaries of state for various economic development agencies, for example Canada has a regional development agency for Quebec, while Quebec has its own regional development sttructure.

This gives rise to a sizeable number of concrete problems. It is hard to co-ordinate the work in the field, because the federal government wants to be visible more than it wants to be useful. This causes problems of slowness and inefficiency in the system, when it comes to meeting people's needs.

The primary underlying problem in all these negotiations, in Quebec's case, is that it is difficult to reach an agreement with someone who represents an entity whose existence one refuses to recognize.

When we are told there is no such thing as Quebec culture, as the Prime Minister said, when one refuses to recognize the fact that Quebeckers are a people, it is very difficult, when it comes to negotiating with someone who refuses to recognize our very existence, to find a basis for understanding. This in turn creates a number of problems. The basic problem in relations between Quebec and Canada has always been at this level.

Even though people believe we talk too much about it, we do not stress it often enough. When it comes to the Constitution that currently governs Canada and contains the fundamental rules according to which people are living together, it is now shameful to talk about it. Are there many other countries that are ashamed to talk about their constitution, which should be a fundamental principle and something accepted by the citizens as a whole? There is something wrong when a country is ashamed of its constitution. Why is it wrong? Let us not forget what happened during the patriation of the constitution which governs us currently. One player did not sign, and this player is Quebec.

I know a few people will say “Yes, but separatists will never sign anything”. They should remember that for nine years there was a federalist government in Quebec. Even the main federalist party, the Quebec Liberal Party, does not intend to sign the Constitution as it stands today.

This does not seem to worry too many people. On the contrary, the federal government is forging ahead with administrative framework agreements, such as the one on social union, to further centralize decision making in Canada. This is along the same line. It could not care less that one of its components, which it sees as a major, beneficial, essential part of Canada, did not sign the Constitution.

Let us go back to specific examples, such as culture. If there is one thing that sets Quebeckers apart, it is of course their cultural characteristics. The Government of Quebec is rightly claiming, and in practice now, the ability to represent itself internationally. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Prime Minister reacted hysterically to its doing so and to its promoting its unique qualities internationally.

How can these people not understand even such basic things as these? They are, however, the very people who, with meaningless resolutions, would have us believe they recognize the vaguely distinct character of Quebec.

They will not agree to our promoting even the most obvious elements of our distinctiveness. This is a cultural element.

There is also our ability to do things differently. The Government of Quebec has made decisions regarding the education system in order to give students better access to post-secondary education, saying “We must have more graduates, therefore we will lower fees as much as possible”. Our policy on tuition fees is very different from that of Canada. They are much lower.

Outside Quebec, tuition fees are very high, less than in the United States, but still a lot higher than in Quebec. Obviously, that creates a debt problem that is heightened when students have difficulty finding a job.

I understand there is a problem and a need that is greater in Canada than in Quebec. The government creates a scholarships program for students and says “We will help them, we will reward excellence. There has been this whole debate on elitism. Therefore, we will back off a bit. We will go back to the issue of financial need and help students in this way”.

So, the government came up with a coast to coast program. Yet, needs are not the same everywhere. If we could have control over that money, our priority might be to provide tools that could benefit all students, because in Quebec the primary issue is not students' indebtedness, as is the case in the other provinces. For example, we might use that money to modernize the technological equipment used in our CEGEPs and universities. In this communications era, this might be a greater priority than scholarships.

However, these choices cannot be made because, with its taxation power, with its huge power to collect revenues, the federal government dictates its decisions, or uses the tax system to do so, thus setting priorities that are not necessarily the same as our own.

Because it is incapable of getting along with the Government of Quebec, the federal government does not even want to come to the negotiation table. Instead, it gave that mandate to a private foundation run by BCE's president, and told him “We are sending you $2.5 billion. In addition, you will get two year's interest before starting to deal with issues. You will settle them by negotiating with the government”.

There is a very big accountability problem there, but they are washing their hands of the whole thing by hiding behind a foundation. That is a problem. In the meantime, our educational system cannot define priorities as quickly as it needs to be able to do.

Quebec held a summit conference on priorities in postsecondary education. But the federal government does not see this as important. One morning, the Prime Minister had a bright idea and told the House that that was the priority because he believes that Canada has a role to play in this.

In the few minutes I have left, I want to look briefly at regional development. It is the same thing. Our RCM in Témiscamingue has managed to develop a genuine single window approach. Higher levels of government having had difficulty reaching agreement, we created a single window with one board of directors for the federal, provincial and municipal programs.

Who barged in? The federal government. Having lost its visibility in such a structure, it made us dismantle it. Now, we are going back to two boards, two directors general and, in the long term, two different development visions. Locally, it was a success, but because the federal government had lost its visibility, it decided to make us go back to the earlier system. This is not conducive to economic development. This agency should be called Propaganda Canada, not Economic Development Canada.

The government takes the attitude that Quebeckers do not know how good they have it and should be shown. But our presence in the House, and the presence of others who are not satisfied with this system, shows that there are serious problems that the members opposite have historically been unable to resolve.

[Supply, March 15th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate from the very beginning, and I think the last Liberal speaker gave us a very good illustration of the Liberal position. Liberals are stuck with symbols of the past, they are looking to the past, and they have a hard time getting involved in modern debates that are forward looking, because they feel threatened and they are afraid of coming to grips with their own identity.

In his remarks, the hon. member has never mentioned economic arguments or the impact on exports, which would make an interesting debate, or the transition to be made if we are to have a new currency. There is not a single economic argument in his remarks. His favorite words were pride, symbols, and value. That reminds me a lot of the debate on free trade.

Here is my question to the hon. member. Since he said that our currency represents his pride of being Canadian, his identity, the sense of belonging he feels when he looks at the Canadian dollar, could he explain why this proud symbol represents the Queen of England? Is that symbol of the past what makes him so proud of being Canadian? He is not even able to have on his own currency more proper symbols of Canadian culture.

[Millenium Scholarships, March 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs admitted that the millennium scholarships were probably a mistake. He also said “If we were wrong, we will not do it again”. Yet today we learn that the Minister of Human Resources Development is negotiating with the Liberal opposition in Quebec.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

Not only has the federal government made a mistake by creating the millennium scholarships but, on top of that, the minister is in the process of committing a second mistake by negotiating with the opposition in Quebec instead of with the democratically elected government, which represents all Quebeckers.