Maurice Godin

[Quebec Referendum, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Bob White, the most powerful union leader in Canada, warned Canadian political leaders against being vengeful following a victorious yes vote in the referendum on Monday. He called on them to act responsibly and to negotiate with Quebecers, saying that millions of Quebecers want a different relationship and different recognition by Canada, and so serious discussions will have to be undertaken.

Mr. White acknowledged that it was in Canadians' and Quebecers' interest to establish an economic and political partnership. Given the size of the stakes involved, it would probably not be hard to find support among business people to defend and promote a partnership with Quebec.

Quebecers will vote yes on Monday, confident in their ability to finally negotiate with their Canadian partners as one people with another.

[Referendum Campaign, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec workers' solidarity fund has come out in support of the side for change. To all those waging a scaremongering campaign against the sovereignist option, Mr. Blanchet, the president of the fund, said, and I quote: "The solidarity fund feels that Quebec sovereignty is not only economically viable but that it will be profitable".

Since its inception in 1983, the solidarity fund has become the largest venture capital fund in Canada with over $1 billion in assets. This represents almost 30 per cent of the total value of all venture capital funds in Canada and it is at home, in Quebec, that this money is invested.

Since its inception, the fund has helped create and preserve over 30,000 jobs in Quebec. The solidarity fund is a shining example of what Quebecers can accomplish when they take control of their own destiny. In the same way, Quebecers understand that Quebec's future involves sovereignty and they will vote Yes to change on October 30.

[Francophones Outside Quebec, October 17th, 1995]

Poof.

[Aerospace Industry, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, according to the secret document prepared for Operation Unity by Industry Canada, that, in the event of Quebec sovereignty, because the aerospace industry worldwide maintains close relations with their respective governments, if the governments of Quebec and Canada can maintain co-operative relations in this sector, the aerospace industry will not be affected. The document also indicates that partnership is more the rule than the exception in this industry, throughout the world generally. It seems clear that, in the country's national interest, Canada will try to negotiate a partnership with Quebec in the aerospace sector.

The blackmail, intimidation and threat of reprisals have to stop. It is time Quebecers were told the truth, and the truth is that a partnership is not only possible but desirable for both Canada and Quebec. Canada will negotiate a partnership agreement with Quebec not out of charity for its former province, but because it is in the national interest to do so.

[The National Debt, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, every day, owing to Canada's enormous debt, a federalist legacy, we see the extent to which interest rates and monetary policy are determined by the central bank of our neighbours to the south and by international financial markets.

On May 16, 1994, even Canada's finance minister acknowledged this dependence on financial markets, and I quote: "Canada's debt, especially its foreign debt, undermines the sovereignty of this country. Our sovereignty suffers when we have to keep our interest rates high-even if our rate of inflation is among the lowest in the world-in order to attract foreign investment".

Because of Canada's dependence on foreign investment, it is clear that if the finance minister ignores his obligations as the manager of this debt by refusing to negotiate a new economic partnership with Quebec, national and foreign markets will call him in to order.

[Division Of National Debt, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, according to Robert Fairholm, an economist from a prestigious American firm, the financial markets will force Canada to quickly negotiate division of the debt and to maintain the existing economic ties between the two partners. He says that they will be seeking each other out to sign such an agreement.

Since Canada's is the worse external debt in the G-7, foreign investors will obviously want to protect their investments by forcing Canada to negotiate with Quebec. The financial markets will be there to cool down the emotions of those involved.

It is hard to believe that the Minister of Finance for Canada is incapable of grasping this and keeps saying that Canada could not negotiate a new partnership with Quebec even if it wanted to.

If the Minister of Finance forgets his duty as the manager of the Canadian debt, and if he forgets where the interests of Canadians and Quebecers lie, the financial markets and one of the worst debts in the western world will be there to remind him of that duty.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate on the amendments proposed by the official opposition to Bill C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies. As you know, this bill amends the statutes that establish fifteen federal boards, agencies or commissions, in order to reorganize them or to reduce the number of their members. The bill also dissolves seven federal organizations.

Since the bill received first reading on December 14, the official opposition has been emphasizing the importance of using this opportunity to improve the democratic process in the public service. Indeed, we feel it is important to democratize the appointment process for office holders within the organizations affected by this legislation. We want less patronage and more transparency. It is in that spirit that the Bloc is presenting a series of ten amendments.

I want to concentrate on the amendment which deals with subclause 25(2) of the bill. That clause amends a provision of the Emergency Preparedness Act. More specifically, the bill seeks to increase the ministerial responsibility. To that end, it more or less replaces Emergency Preparedness Canada by the minister himself. In other words, the minister will assume full responsibility with respect to the development and implementation of civil emergency plans.

It is in regard to the implementation of these plans that we want to make a suggestion to the government. Subclause 25(2) of the bill currently reads:

The responsibilities of the Minister with respect to the implementation of civil emergency plans are

(a) to monitor any potential, imminent or actual civil emergency and to report, as required, to other ministers on the emergency and any measures necessary for dealing with it;

We feel that the minister should also have to report to the government of each province. An emergency situation, whether potential, imminent or actual, is never something which takes place in isolation. It may be potential or obvious, but it always concerns a specific place, community, region or province. This is why we feel that provincial authorities should be informed of the measures taken by the federal minister responsible for emergency preparedness.

This is too good an opportunity to miss. I would like to refer to a civil emergency that has forever scarred my riding, the electoral district of Châteauguay. The events of the summer of 1990 were officially classified as a provincial emergency under the Emergency Preparedness Act as a matter of fact.

All the hon. members will remember that, on July 11, 1990, armed warriors withstood a tactical operation carried out by the Sûreté du Québec in the Oka area. Following this, another group of warriors blocked access to the Mercier bridge linking the greater Châteauguay area to Montreal Island. As a result of this coup de force, more than 80,000 commuters were unable to cross the bridge, with implications that are still underestimated. Peaceful people were the victims of this action. Businesses were closed, jobs were lost and incalculable time was lost because of detours.

We know that the handling of this crisis was a disaster. This lack of initiative was one of the main reasons why the Liberals were defeated in the last provincial election. That government was weak. This was a government without backbone or vision and dependent on this Canadian constitution which no longer meets modern-day needs.

This government which has seen one of its cabinet members fly off to Ottawa after losing the last provincial election is now advocating the constitutional status quo like its leader. This status quo, however, could well plunge the city of Châteauguay into another crisis, since this constitution contains no specific division of responsibilities between the parties involved. After having demanded, with her former leader, constitutional changes, how can a former Quebec minister stand for the status quo? Moreover, no effort has been made to set up real negotiations between the native peoples and the federal government on their respective rights and responsibilities.

At least the federal government did not step in on its own initiative. It only acted at the request of the Quebec government, fortunately. We can easily assume that if the federal government had stepped in on its own, it would have messed up things even more.

Now, to get back to the case in point with Bill C-65. According to this piece of legislation, the minister would only have to report to his or her fellow cabinet members. Everybody will agree with me that, in such circumstances, it would be unthinkable for the Quebec government not to be officially informed of the measures taken by the minister.

This is a good example that shows the need for the amendment to Bill C-65 moved by the Bloc Quebecois. We think it is important that the federal minister be required to report to his provincial counterpart when he implements civil emergency plans and more particularly when he monitors any situation of potential, imminent or real crisis. Public security requires positive discussions between all governments and public authorities.

The federal government should not overlook its responsibilities when it reorganizes or abolishes any of its agencies, as it does under Bill C-65. That is also true of the minister who becomes responsible for Emergency Preparedness Canada. His duty to co-ordinate with provincial and local authorities must not be limited to the development and implementation of civil emergency plans. He must also report to all public authorities concerned by the actions he will take in matters of civil defence, including provinces.

It is a question of good co-ordination but also a question of transparency. The federal government is concentrating powers in the hands of the ministers. This concentration increases the risk of abuse, discretionary decisions, partisan treatments and arbitrary choices. Therefore it is increasingly necessary to establish transparency mechanisms in order to preserve the integrity of the government.

The Auditor General of Canada keeps asking for such accountability mechanisms. They are even more necessary when power is placed in the hands of fewer people. This is what is happening now within the federal government, and Bill C-65 is another move in that direction.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois is presenting amendments asking for more transparency. This is what we want when we ask that the minister responsible for civil preparedness be accountable to the provinces, when we ask that the lieutenant governor in council of each province be consulted before some of the appointments, when we ask that the appropriate standing committee of the House approve some of the appointments and when we ask that each provincial government be consulted before certain appointments.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), June 21st, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-65, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing line 30, on page 7, with the following:

"required, to the government of each province and to other ministers on the emer-".

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995, June 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, as I listen to the member for Simcoe Centre, I see that we are talking about the electoral map as opposed to a reduction in the number of seats. I see that the words or comments used approximate those of the Bloc. There are too many members and too much government. The country is over-governed and on the verge of bankruptcy. Running the country has become too costly and the government should be more efficient and less cumbersome. The number of seats should be trimmed by 10 per cent.

For our part, we are merely offering to eliminate 75 seats in one fell swoop. Could it be that they are finally beginning to understand our position and that they will soon be supporting us?

[Supply, June 1st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to the member's analysis of my colleague's remarks. I must tell you that it is difficult to know what he thinks. First, he criticized everything that the Bloc has said or done since its arrival in the House of Commons. Then he told us he agreed with everything we are doing. Where does he really stand? It is certainly not evident; it is difficult to follow him.

The bulk of his speech was about decentralization, something he shares our views on. For years now, we in Quebec have been asking, without success, for decentralization of powers to the provinces in order to meet the challenge of eventual globalization of markets.

The debt was mentioned. It is centralization that has brought us this $500 billion debt, which may well wipe out all the social programs and be passed on to future generations. In particular, he spoke about the advantages to Quebec of east-west trade. But he neglected to mention that we have spent millions over the last 127 years to develop this trade. This might allow an independent Quebec to look in the direction of other large markets of interest to us, north-south markets.

He also spoke about the problems we are experiencing that we have been unable to resolve within the existing system. I would like to mention a few to him. If we are speaking about structural problems, there are fundamental problems to which solutions have never been found under the constitution. First, the interference of the federal government in provincial areas of responsibility; second, the distinct society; third, the autonomy of the First Nations; fourth the absence of affinity between eastern and western Canadians, the well-know alienation of the west, which has always viewed itself as the frontier; the federal government's right to fund megaprojects without the agreement of the provinces, which has resulted in a debt of $500 billion and the unemployment we are now experiencing; economic recovery and job creation; and finally, the challenge of tomorrow, which is the globalization of markets.

Yet, if I take the period between 1968 and 1993, there were two great leaders, with two different approaches-Trudeau from 1968 to 1984, and Mulroney from 1984 to 1993. One was pushing a dominant central government, one strong nation while the other-in all fairness, Mr. Mulroney cannot be faulted for trying-proposed decentralization simply in an effort to get this great country going again.

We all know the results: the Meech Lake fiasco and the failure of the Charlottetown accord, despite the fact that English Canada spent $13 million promoting this accord compared to the

some $800,000 spent on the Yes campaign. Furthermore, in the election following these events, the Conservative Party was wiped off the map.

There is no denying that something is happening. We are heading straight for a black hole, and we have proof that strong federalism is steering us towards it, while decentralization-well, everybody is in favour of it but no one wants to make the first move. And that is simply what Quebec wants to do. Quebec wants to take its matters into its own hands and simply show the rest of Canada that it is time to make a move, because we are on the brink of falling into the black hole.

My question for the hon. member is about the globalization of markets. Be it in the industrial sector or the public sector, it has been proven that the only survivors will be small units capable of charting their own course, reorganizing their operations and meeting market demand. Does he think that the road to success is through decentralization, which has yet to have been seen here, or through following the status quo?