Yves Rocheleau

[The Budget, March 18th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. I think that the main characteristic of the official opposition since we were elected to the House in 1993, the first session starting in 1994, is indeed a spirit of co-operation, which was reflected in documents published during the October 1995 referendum, in which we spoke of partnership.

What we sovereignists ask for is mutual respect. This is something we as the official opposition can achieve here.

I spoke earlier of the work done by my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, who is our finance critic. It must be a rare occurrence in Canadian history when the opposition proposes very articulate and well-documented suggestions on corporate and personal income tax. We suggested ways for the government to improve the tax system. This is a good example of partnership and respect.

We are not here to destroy any country but to build one: Quebec. It is our country, our homeland, and we want to work in a respectful partnership, on an equal footing with our closest neighbour, with whom we have an indisputable historic relationship.

We are a people, just as Canadians are a people. So why not work together in an honourable and civilized way? Both our societies are civilized. So why are there such antagonistic feelings, especially in the Canadian press? Why not recognize that Quebec is profoundly distinct? Why not be pleased that this people will soon become sovereign? We would work together, not one against the other. Quebec's current economic problems should not be a cause for celebration.

Montreal is going through a very difficult period. Let us hope that this is not the result of a concerted effort. Let us hope that this will not lead some people to pat themselves on the back. The worse the situation is in Quebec, the more people will be scared and thus tempted to vote no; let us hope this is not a strategy. Let us hope that this is only a coincidence and that the Canadian government will put Quebec's money back into Quebec's economy, especially for R and D and the purchase of goods and services. We know that Quebec has historically been treated like an underdog by the Canadian government. Let us hope that the situation will get back to normal as soon as possible and that we will be able to work closely together as two peoples and two civilized nations.

[The Budget, March 18th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, on this third day of debate on the budget, I am pleased to join my colleagues and to speak as the member for Trois-Rivières and critic for regional development.

This government and its Minister of Finance in particular are constantly boasting about their good performance, but, on our side, we never stopped shedding a different light on the facts to remind the public that their fight against the deficit is not really aimed at putting our fiscal house in order, but is done on the backs of the unemployed, the most disadvantaged.

We all know that, thanks to UI contributions paid by employees and employers, the unemployment fund has a huge surplus of some $5 billion that the Minister of Finance is using to reduce the deficit rather than speed up economic development. We this surplus, he could lower UI contributions for employers, and above all for workers, leaving more money in their pockets and thus increasing consumer spending.

No, this would be too wonderful, too generous. The Minister of Finance prefers using other people's money to improve his image just before the election, although this is not in the best interests of the public. He also did it at the expense of the provinces, as everyone knows, by recently cutting $4.5 billion in transfers to the provinces, not to mention, again, the $5 billion taken from the unemployment insurance fund.

So, the government is boasting about an amount of $10 billion when, in fact, it got that money at the expense of others. This is absolutely shameful, and we will make it our duty to inform the public accordingly, including Quebecers, in the months to come.

There was also no tax reform, even though the official opposition, through its members on the finance committee, provided a great deal of advice to the government in recent months. I am referring here to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, the hon. member for La Prairie, and the hon. member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies who, with the help of advisers, did a job that was even noticed by the Minister of Finance, but ignored.

The government turned a deaf ear, even though these were very reasonable, not "revolutionary" proposals, including a suggestion to make sure the tax deferred by corporations is better managed. The business sector is well aware that some companies are making excessive use of that tax provision. Why not crack down harder on these companies, given what is being asked of the poor?

No effort is being made either to ensure that the distribution of wealth is done more properly, and that those who are financially well-off make a greater contribution. And I do not mean the middle class, because it is all too easy to crack down on wage earners. I mean those who wield some financial clout. I mean those who can take advantage of tax havens, who can use several of them at the same time. These are the people we should be going after.

Of course, I also want to mention those who have family trusts of a very high value. I am not talking about a family trust of $50,000 or $100,000, but about the family trusts the auditor general mentioned last year: $1 billion in each one, and morevoer they were transferred to the United States.

When are these issues ever raised, nowadays? When will the government make the rich pay, the really rich people, not the middle class, which is being strangled and which increasingly is working for nothing, a situation which has a destabilizing effect on the social fabric? We are more and more critical of each other, while forgetting in the process that the money is there somewhere. As far as I know, there is no warehouse facility in Canada, in Quebec or in the world, where money is being burned. Money is not being burned. If wealth is not being shared, then it is being concentrated.

In Quebec, in Canada, in the western world, we are witnessing an increasing and abusive concentration of wealth. If this trend is not corrected, we have every reason for being concerned about the future.

There is a passage in the speech from the throne that particularly caught my attention; it is the second paragraph on page 12, and it is of special concern to the residents of the municipalities in my riding and of many communities, especially in Quebec. Some of my colleagues will no doubt feel concerned.

The paragraph reads as follows: "Therefore, we are announcing today that $10 million of funding in each of the next three years will be devoted to significantly increase the number of communities across Canada that have the electronic infrastructure required to access the communications technologies of the future. As a result of this program, virtually every community in Canada between 400 and 50,000 in population will be connected over the next four years-5,000 communities in all."

That is all very nice, but you have to know how much this is out of touch with reality as far as daily communications by telephone are concerned. You have to know that in my riding, in the new part of my riding adjacent to Louiseville, Saint-Léon-le-Grand and Maskinongé, as in many other small communities of Quebec-I got to understand that these last weeks-we have telephone service that cannot be called anything but rotten.

We are still living in the stone age as far as communications are concerned. In the Saint-Léon-le-Grand area and in some communities in the riding of Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister's riding, four subscribers still share a single line. Four people on the same line, and we keep talking about the electronic infrastructure across Canada. We have satellites and we still cannot even have fax machines at home. This is a far cry from the optic fibre era. We have four people on the same line. Some businesses are also on a party line of four. They cannot get personal calls because there is no confidentiality whatsoever.

Apparently, there are senior citizens homes with 10, 20, or 30 people using a single party line shared by four customers. There is no confidentiality, and it is impossible to make emergency phone calls. These people need to be able to call the police or the ambulance. This is not in the far north, but in an area between Montreal and Quebec City, right in the middle of the province.

I hear more and more that even in the Montreal area, this kind of problem occurs, just like in smaller towns. It is about time the government called the CRTC to order, and that the CRTC called to order big companies like Bell Canada, to make sure the public in Canada and Quebec gets some respect, to make sure taxpayers and subscribers get the kind of respect they deserve.

There is something weird here. We keep talking about the optic fibre networks, of globalization of markets, free trade and high technology-and technology kills jobs-and we cannot even make a simple phone call in decent conditions. This is unacceptable. We at least need the means to spread the bad news. In an area between Montreal and Quebec City, we still have party lines of four. It makes no sense whatsoever. These people sometimes need to call the ambulance. I would like to pay tribute here to the head of the Maskinongé RCM, Jocelyne Elliott Leblanc, the mayor of Louiseville, who has done a remarkable job.

The issue has been brought to the attention of the Office of the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice. He better deal with the problems faced by the residents of these new municipalities still living in the Stone Age, because his government sanctions the CRTC, which establishes standards fit for large corporations, including Bell Canada, and where navel-gazing is a favourite pastime, except for those who do not have access to adequate phone services.

The Prime Minister has better take care of this. The ball is in his court and we will be waiting for him just around the corner in a few weeks or a few months because, if he is unable to deal with such issues-he was unable to settle other similar issues, as we know-the people of Saint-Paulin and others in that region who are faced with such enormous problems will let him know.

In some cases, Bell Canada's solution was to suggest that people buy cellular phones. There are no phone services in that area, and I am not talking about the far north, as I said, but about a region located between Montreal and Quebec City, one hour from Montreal and one hour and a quarter or one hour and a half from Quebec City.

It does not make sense; it is unacceptable. The government is bragging, something the Minister of Finance is quite good at. They are bragging about the information highway. But we will talk about that again during the election campaign.

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to listen to the Secretary of State talk about the involvement of the Quebec government with such snobbishness.

You have to realize that the Government of Quebec has to deal with the entire problem. It has to deal with the whole issue of regional development. That is why there can be some tension and adjustment problems between Minister Chevrette and Mrs. Harel.

The government of Quebec is not just playing around with the issue of regional development. It is not pretending to deal with it. It does not interfere with the CFDC, the 55 CFDC. The main objective of the federal government is to go strut its stuff in the regions and get chummy with some of the local elite to get them on side.

The Province of Quebec is concerned about economic development, technological development and exports. It is the Canadian government's responsibility to deal with foreign affairs. Once we become sovereign, we too will be concerned about international trade, just as the Government of Canada is today.

Let us stop the cuts to transfer payments to the provinces, and especially to the Province of Quebec. The Government of Quebec has some good technological development programs, which it will be able to improve.

I have a simple question for the Secretary of State. Where does the anti-sponsorship policy of the Minister of Health fit into the regional development strategy? There is some concern about that, as we saw in the media. Where was the Secretary of State when we addressed the sponsorship issue that affects every region in Quebec, as well as the Montreal Grand Prix, the Trois-Rivières Grand Prix and the Jazz Festival? We know he was not comfortable with this issue, just like the President of the Treasury Board and even the Prime Minister and the two hot shots from the Montreal area. Where does this fit in with their willingness to really-

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this illustrates perfectly the contempt these people have for the Government of Quebec and for Quebecers.

When we talk about a surplus of $11 billion, it is because we are pleased to be receiving unemployment insurance, we are pleased to be poor. We are pleased to have no real economic development. We are pleased to have no strategy. We are pleased to be poor.

This is a Quebecer telling us this. It is hard to believe. When we talk about the SDI, the Caisse de dépôt, these are organizations that, with the Quebec Department of Industry and Commerce, are working daily to try to improve the situation as much as they can within a constitutional context that gives the Government of Quebec barely half the powers to try to organize its development year in and year out.

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to these agreements, I will answer that we know, and the secretary of state is well aware, that this kind of agreement has been around since 1974. We are also very well aware that the last one was not renewed.

We know that it was not renewed because the federal government wants to have an increasingly large say in the management of these agreements. It wants to put pressure on the Government of Quebec, which is a constitutionally legitimate body, to call the shots on regional development. Either the federal government wants to circumvent the Government of Quebec, or it wants to get along with it. Increasing power is needed if regional development is to be carried out on the pan- Canadian scale he mentioned.

We, however, claim that we have our own way of doing things. In this regard, it would perhaps be a good opportunity for the secretary of state to give some meaning to the empty notions of distinct society the Prime Minister is so proud of saying he introduced, or tried to introduce, into the Constitution, when we know it is an empty shell. Perhaps the member for Outremont could make an effort to recognize that the people to which he belongs have a different way of doing things, instead of trying to get us to swallow a Canadian vision and logic, which is causing Quebec to lose out on regional development.

[Supply, March 12th, 1997]

moved:

That this House condemn the federal government which, because of its policies, is in large measure responsible for increasing poverty in the regions of Quebec, especially the loss of 10,000 jobs at Canada Post; the offloading of regional airports and ports without adequate financial compensation; the tightening of employment insurance eligibility criteria that has adversely affected seasonal workers, among others; the setting of fees for coast guard services; the significant reductions in fishing quotas in Quebec; the refusal to extend the framework agreement on regional economic development with the Quebec government; and, finally, increasing unilateral intervention in regional development matters without consideration of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, first I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Laurentides, who is the seconder of the motion.

With your permission, I will also read this opposition motion, for which we deserve to be congratulated. It is time that we, on this side of the House, take stock and condemn the government which is blissfully moving toward an election, as if things were going well, when in fact Quebec and Canada are in a deep slump.

The motion reads as follows:

That this House condemn the federal government which, because of its policies, is in large measure responsible for increasing poverty in the regions of Quebec, especially the loss of 10,000 jobs at Canada Post; the offloading of regional airports and ports without adequate financial compensation; the tightening of employment insurance eligibility criteria that has adversely affected seasonal workers, among others; the setting of fees for coast guard services; the significant reductions in fishing quotas in Quebec; the refusal to extend the framework agreement on regional economic development with the Quebec government; and, finally, increasing unilateral intervention in regional development matters without consideration of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

I will deal with certain issues mentioned in the motion, and leave it to my colleagues to discuss other ones. I should point out from the outset that, as regards regional development, a frame of reference called the Economic and Regional Development Agreement, the ERDA, has been in place since 1974, between the Quebec and federal governments, as the secretary of state probably knows.

The Liberal government opposite is increasingly circumventing this agreement, which has been in existence for over 20 years and which led to the harmonization of relations between the two levels of government with respect to regional development, which is recognized as a primarily provincial, Quebec in this case, area of jurisdiction.

One needs to know that, in 1993, when the members across the way came to power, 62 per cent of funding for regional development came by way of the ERDA, while today, in 1996, we are receiving only 33 per cent in this manner. In other words, two thirds of these public funds are being used as the federal government sees fit, sometimes arbitrarily, supposedly in an attempt to promote regional development.

Why? So that the federal government can be more visible, score political points. So that the Secretary of State for the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec can visit the 53 CFDCs and score political points on behalf of his government, cut ribbons, smile nicely, hold press conferences and pretend that there is harmony between the Government of Quebec and the federal government and that there is a genuine intervention and consensus strategy, when in fact there is not.

What there really is, in the case of CFDCs, is competition with regional economic development corporations, which have been there for a long time and which were created by the Government of Quebec and come under its jurisdiction, coming under the department of industry and commerce for example.

In addition to this hit and miss approach, there is also the fact that it is being done through the federal office of regional development. They do this by circumventing and duplicating what is being done or what was already being done in Quebec. Recently they changed the mandate of FORD-Q. It was supposed to analyze submissions from small businesses seeking grants, and evaluate their projects. Funding was cut, so the mandate was changed. Instead of getting rid of this agency, they changed its mandate and turned its employees into advisers to small business, a role that was already being played by the Department of Industry and Trade.

They set up the Idée-PME program which is directly targeted to small businesses in Quebec and is in a way competing, at taxpayers' expense, with other public sector resources for small businesses, which tends to make the whole process of seeking financial assistance from the government unnecessarily complex.

Things are also changing at the Federal Business Development Bank. The name has been changed. It is now called, rather pretentiously, in my opinion, the Business Development Bank of Canada. The legislation authorizes the federal government to approach local and regional stakeholders under the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec. Arbitrarily, without prior consultation, the government decides to intervene in a jurisdiction that belongs to the Government of Quebec.

We can hardly call this co-operation. We can hardly call this strategy. Certainly not when we are talking about the so-called

co-operation between the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada, with taxpayers' money, not hand-outs as the Secretary of State for Regional Development sometimes seems to imply, as though it was federal money, not money paid by Quebecers through their taxes. We should not forget this.

On a macro-economic level, I think we should compare FORD-Q with its Canadian equivalents. There are two. In Eastern Canada we have ACOA, for the development of the maritime provinces and in Western Canada, the Western Economic Diversification Agency.

Suppose we stick to ACOA. Compared with what Quebec receives through FORD-Q, if we consider the number of unemployed workers concerned in Quebec and compare this with the number of unemployed workers in the maritimes, the latter receive four times as much for an equivalent number of unemployed, if we look at it on that basis. If we look at it on a per capita basis, it is five times as much. So this is the profitable federalism the secretary of state was talking about last week when I asked him a question about regional development.

Remember also that not only do the maritimes receive far more proportionally, but altogether, in terms of regional development, the maritimes receive five times as much money from Ottawa as Quebec does.

Furthermore, we have this very controversial decision, and Quebecers are becoming increasingly upset about this, the decision by the Government of Canada to give the maritimes $1 billion in compensation for harmonizing the GST. Of this $1 billion, part of which goes to New Brunswick, $250 million comes from Quebec, and part of that will go to New Brunswick. Thanks to this money, the engaging Premier of New Brunswick will be able to use Quebec's tax money to recruit Quebec industrialists and bring them to New Brunswick, thus competing with the Government of Quebec and the Quebec economy. This is appalling. In fact, there is evidence that this was going on during the recent trip to China by Team Canada.

It also needs to be known that, where the GST is concerned, not only did the maritimes get $1 billion but, as was pointed out during question period, using a cooked-up formula the Minister of Finance finds ever so pleasing, the Government of Canada is refusing to provide Quebec with the same amount, proportionally, which would be in the order of $2 billion, compared to their $1 billion. This offers a clear illustration of the cost-effective federalism the Secretary of State referred to last week.

Where a number of activities are concerned, the concept of regional development can be broad and vague on occasion. One of those activities is the coast guard, which was also referred to in the motion. The coast guard was inherited by Fisheries and Oceans from Transport Canada, with a mandate to manage the ports of Canada, including those along the St. Lawrence, and it was decided to charge users of the St. Lawrence.

This three-tier fee system involves charges for navigational aids, that is buoys, lighthouses and so forth, as well as charges for dredging the river and the waterways leading to the St. Lawrence ports and for icebreaking. The latter is the most significant, and would be the most painful, if ever the federal government sticks with its decision to set fees which would net the federal government $160 million over the next three years leading up to the year 2000. All of this totally ignores any possible impact studies available. The actions taken in this area were the product of an amateurish approach by those concerned only about the costs of the coast guard, apparently without any concern for the major negative impacts that might result if this new fee scale is implemented as the government plans.

Seventy-five per cent of the witnesses, who knew what they were talking about, who knew how to do a case-by-case impact study, begged the federal government to reconsider, because of the threat this represented to the competitiveness of the St. Lawrence ports compared to their competitors on the U.S. east coast, the Canadian east coast, and even the Mississippi.

Since you are indicating to me that my time is up, I will conclude by saying that the way the federal government is going about this illustrates the ever more pressing necessity for Quebec to attain sovereignty so it can finally be in charge, and for the federal government to stop being involved, not in regional development, but in regional anti-development.

[Petitions, March 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present this petition signed by 25 persons, most of whom are residents of my riding of Trois-Rivières. This petition was circulated by the Quebec Automobile Club.

The petitioners urge Parliament to bring pressure to bear on the federal government to join forces with the provincial governments in order to improve the national highway system.

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for Calgary-Centre for his speech.

He dealt in his own way with the major objection we have to this bill, although we agree with much of its substance, that is, the effect of the abolition of sponsorships on smoking, particularly among the young people.

With the disappearance of sponsorships, there will be no sponsoring of sports and cultural events. Quebec receives $30 million out of the $60 million spent for sponsorships. It will be greatly affected, and this will create unemployment. Unemployment is a source of problems. It has been demonstrated that when there are problems, smoking increases.

I would like to ask my colleague a question about that. Following a study by Statistics Canada, we read this in the press, and I quote:

Studies show that young people smoke first and foremost to imitate their friends. But this does not account for the fact that their consumption has increased in the last few years.

According to analyses, the fact that teenagers rebel against "the system" may have something to do with it. The data indicate that 53 per cent of the young people who drop out of high school smoke. Disheartened by the gloomy prospects for the future, they are all the more inclined to challenge the increasing prohibition on smoking.

When we see what the government has done on unemployment insurance, it is clear that these prospects are even more gloomy. As the people's sufferings increase, so does their smoking.

Here is another quote:

We have seen however that peer pressure or restrictions such as those imposed by governments do not encourage smokers to quit. Two times out of three, that is, in 66 per cent of cases-health concerns prompt smokers to butt out.

Does the hon. member believe in the equation that the government makes between the abolition of sponsorships and the reduction in the smoking?

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to rise during the question and comment period following the speech made by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, who stressed the so-called pernicious

effects of sponsorship on our youth and on their decision to take up smoking.

I just received this morning a very nice letter from a resident of my riding who is 18 years old, whom I have never met, whom I do not know and who took the time to e-mail me a letter at 8.45 this morning.

Let me read you the letter sent to me by Lisa-Marie Dupont from Trois-Rivières:

"Mr. Rocheleau,

I saw the position you have taken on the issue of tobacco company sponsorship and I had to tell you that I support it. I am an 18-year-old woman who has lived all her life in Trois-Rivières, which hosts the annual Player's Grand Prix, and I have never smoked a cigarette in my whole life. Moreover, I have volunteered to work in the press room these last two years, an experience which will be very useful when I have to find a good job. It is nonsense to think health depends on sponsorship; the decision to take up smoking or not, especially among the young, is more a matter of education and guidance.

For a city like Trois-Rivières, this kind of event is very important. Tourism picks up considerably, the whole city comes alive with pride and hundreds of volunteers enthusiastically give a helping hand to make this event successful.

Such events give national and international visibility to cities. Is that not a sure advantage in this era of market globalization?

Please do not succumb to the pressures and keep defending your point of view. It is very important to our region.

Signed, Lisa-Marie Dupont".

There is one sentence that I would like to read again for my colleague: "It is nonsense to think health depends on sponsorship; the decision to take up smoking or not, especially among the young, is more a matter of education and guidance". This is quite a change from the shortsightedness, the partisanship and the kind of intolerance shown by government members and also by the health workers lobby-because it is indeed a lobby. I think such a testimony reflects good faith, intelligence, wisdom, balance and common sense.

Common sense is exactly what is lacking in this bill, 80 per cent of which we agree with. The members opposite seem to forget that. What we are opposed to are the sponsorship provisions in this bill, which will have a devastating effect on economic development.

If smoking kills-and I would like my colleague to comment on this-can the lack of jobs, as has been demonstrated, have the same effect? Is it possible that someone who is unemployed will have a tendency to smoke more, which will also contribute to killing him or her? So the public interest will not be served by these shortsighted policies that create more problems than they solve. I would like my colleague to comment on this.

[Tobacco Act, March 6th, 1997]

I will rise again later, because there is something interesting I am eager to tell you. Again, I congratulate the hon. member.