Paul Crête

[Petitions, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition signed by over 1,000 persons in the constituency of Gaspé. The member for Gaspé is absent because there has been a death in his family.

This petition is a foretaste of a general outcry because it is strongly critical of the government's current reform of Canada Employment Centres, and urgently requests an overall evaluation of the repercussions of that restructuring on the regions, as well as implementation of that restructuring to reflect specific regional characteristics.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada Act, June 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it may be the first time since I have been a member of this House that we have actually been critical of name changes. Usually, this is a mere technicality. A name will be changed to make it a little more modern or more precise, but in this case, when we see the Federal Business Development Bank being renamed as the Business Development Bank of Canada, it is clearly all part of this vast strategy of a federal government that has decided, in its wisdom, that it is going to run the show.

I would put this on a par with the agreement on internal trade in Canada, where again, a bill is being used to let the federal government penalize the provinces that do not comply with the agreement by cutting funding in their social programs, and I am referring to Bill C-76, where in any case it wants to intervene in sectors that are not its responsibility. In the case of the bank, which is going to be the Business Development Bank of Canada, if the House ever passes this bill, personally, I think the name is rather pretentious.

Canada has quite a few financial institutions that are involved in development. There are other banking institutions that may be involved in a positive and occasionally in a negative way in development and which are very much part of the process. There cannot be just one business development bank of Canada, unless there is more than meets the eye here.

I am also somewhat amazed at the direction in which this bill is going. During the first few months I was in the House, I was a member of the industry committee. At the time, members from Ontario were looking for ways to make the banks more sensitive to the problems of small entrepreneurs. They were interested to see what Quebec had in the way of institutions that provide complementary financing. I am thinking for instance of the Centre d'aide aux entreprises, the Mouvement Desjardins, the FTQ Fonds de solidarité-the CNTU is about to develop a similar fund.

It was clear Ontario had had a difficult time during the last recession and there was this feeling of hostility towards the banks.

Now with this bill, this feeling seems to have disappeared. Does it mean that the bank lobby was successful? Does the fact that they contribute very generously to the Liberal Party of Canada make a difference? I do not know for sure, but there is something strange going on here.

This decision also seems to be part of a broader strategy I would like to explain very briefly. When the Liberals came to power, there was a network referred to as business development centres. It was decided to amalgamate these with the community futures committees. Now that these two bodies have been amalgamated, they are attached directly to the Federal Office of Regional Development.

Therefore, the whole community development element set up by the community futures committees will, in my opinion, lead to the systematic and progressive dropping of the community development mandate over the next few months, since the transfer to the FORD takes place on September 30.

There was already one regional office per administrative region, but the Federal Office of Regional Development will try through the Business Development Bank of Canada to set up a network of branch offices to catch bigger service points across Canada in the web.

What is particularly sad is that two networks are being set up in parallel, one beside the other. Neither Quebec nor Canada has the means to pay for a double network. A choice has to be made. Quebecers will have the opportunity this fall to decide once and for all who they want to serve them.

Do they want Canadian banks-like the Royal Bank, for example? Is this the network we want to look after our interests in the future? Or do we want a network that belongs to us much more and that is under our complete control? We must not forget that Quebec has found itself in a very bad situation in relation to the federal government on a number of occasions in the past.

What about the time they wanted to limit the number of CN shares that could be purchased. Each time Quebec capital tried to get in, it was foiled. This seems to be very much the approach of the Business Development Bank of Canada.

Another rather paradoxical element in the current bill is that the government, which claims to be in favour of a free market environment, is directly infringing on the Mouvement Desjardins, among others, and the banking institutions. All of a sudden, the government takes a step backward and decides that there will be an additional competitor.

Just what is this complementary loan? It is not very clear and we are not sure of the result which will be achieved. How will it be integrated into the Canadian banking system? One can understand the concerns of those who already corner the market.

Before changing the mandate of an agency such as the Federal Business Development Bank, we must take a close look and see if we can afford more duplication. I doubt that there is a single Quebecer or Canadian who thinks so.

If the federal government dismisses the solutions which will avoid such duplication and wants first and foremost to ensure its presence in every province and in every sector when there are already other stakeholders involved, it will only follow the pattern set a long time ago, particularly during the Trudeau years. Remember the sign war, when the federal and Quebec would each claim to have made the largest contribution to a given project.

There was some kind of blackmail going on at that time, which we all paid for in a way. Today, answers are sought much more in terms of guidelines and comprehensive solutions. In that regard, this bill will not solve anything as it only increases duplication. What is happening here is the same thing that happened to the Federal Office of Regional Development a while ago. The FORD's mission was changed by taking away the resources that allowed it to play an active role in the Quebec economy, while at the same time increasing the number of service points, when services were already available from the Quebec ministries of tourism as well as Industry, Commerce and Technology.

That is what happened to the FORD. The same thing is now happening to the Federal Business Development Bank, and I think this is a bad move on the part of the government. It reflects the old belief that Ottawa provides, that it has the answer to whatever problems the people of Quebec, British Columbia, the maritimes and elsewhere may have, when the fact of the matter is that tools are already in place in many regions.

Therefore, the federal government should review its bill to make sure that it will not result in the interference that the implementation of the Business Development Bank of Canada Act will bring about.

[Public Harbours And Port Facilities Act, June 21st, 1995]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-344, an act to amend the Public harbours and Port Facilities Act.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to change a time-honoured practice under the Public harbours and Port Facilities Act by which harbour masters and wharfingers are appointed at the discretion of the minister, often as a political favour.

The purpose of the bill is to ensure that appointments are made on the basis of individual qualifications. The decision will still be up to the minister, but he will have to designate appointees who have shown they are capable of performing the duties involved, all of which would be part of the current review of Canada's marine policy. I think the House would have no trouble passing this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

[Peacekeeping Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on May 5, 1995, I put a question to the Minister of Canadian Heritage about budget cuts affecting a program designed to subsidize the distribution of magazines and publications. At the time the minister told me he would check with his officials and find out how effective the cuts were.

However, I may recall for the benefit of the minister that cutting a job in the cultural sector has a more significant impact than it would in other sectors. For instance, it is said it costs about $20,000 to create a job in the cultural sector. Reducing subsidies for magazines and publications would have a far more significant impact in terms of jobs lost than similar cuts in other sectors.

The cultural sector is very sensitive to reductions in subsidies. In the current context it is clear the government must make cuts. However, one always wonders whether the cuts are appropriate and if it would have been possible to avoid them by raising additional taxes in some way, to avoid having to cut this kind of program.

In this particular case the current government's decision is not one with which we can feel comfortable, considering the impact this decision will have on cultural industries. Furthermore, this decision adversely affects the dissemination of Canadian and Quebec culture. The publications and magazines that receive these subsidies tend to have a fairly low circulation and may as a result of this decision be forced to stop publishing, which is a far more drastic impact than what the minister had in mind.

I would like to know whether since my question was put, the government received additional information it could use to analyse the situation or perhaps find alternatives so that the cultural sector would not be penalized by the government's decision.

[Cn Commercialization Act, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will also be very brief. I just want to explain to hon. members what the consequences are of adopting or defeating this amendment.

I would like to provide some historical background. Certain choices were made in the course of Canada's history and one was that the railroad would go from New Brunswick through Eastern Quebec and then to Ontario. These decisions also led to the introduction of transportation subsidies to compensate for the fact that the distance was greater than it would be through the United States.

If we do not adopt the amendment before the House today, we might easily land in a situation where American interests would be able to buy or get a controlling interest in CN and thus be able to close down certain parts of the line for the benefit of American lines, in other words, the routes through the United States.

This is true in Eastern Canada and also in Western Canada. I think that if we do not watch out, 25, 30 or 35 years from now we will realize we made a strategic mistake that will cost Quebec and Canada dearly. In the past, we saw that Quebec was adversely affected as a result of certain choices made with respect to railway routes. The amendment before the House today would prevent this kind of situation.

Incidentally, a Canadian group would not be prohibited from owning more than 15 per cent of CN shares. This might give Quebec interests a chance to ensure that in the future, the entire railway network in Quebec is harmonized with the road network. That is why this amendment should be passed.

[Cn Commercialization Act, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to talk about the pension plans.

I believe it must be pointed out that the CN workers and rail workers everywhere in the country know perfectly well whom they can trust the most in this House.

[English]

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have thirty seconds left so I will simply say that on the issue of civil servants, we now have 18 percent of all civil servants and 24 per cent of the population. When federal civil servants join the Quebec public service, there will be a significant economy of scale for us and we will be better off.

As for accepting the results, I will return the question to the member. Does he believe that people who form a nation, and who have fought for the last 250 or 300 years to obtain the complete control of that nation, will stop now? The struggle will stop only when Quebec is absolutely sovereign and that is the answer of Quebec sovereignists.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to thank and commend the hon. member for Calgary West for wanting to know more about the institutions which will be proposed to Canada by a sovereign Quebec. I think he should be reminded, and I want to reassure him on this, that the parliamentary assembly, one of the institutions provided for in the economic association proposal, will be an elected assembly.

The members of this assembly will be elected by the Parliament of Quebec and the Parliament of Canada or all parliaments in Canada together, depending on the type of representation they choose. They will not be appointed randomly. This joint assembly will bring together elected members from Quebec and Canada.

A decision on this economic association proposal will be made after the people of Quebec have voted in a referendum to take full control of their own development, which means passing all legislation, collecting all taxes and making agreements, including perhaps an economic partnership agreement with Canada. It is very interesting to share views on this proposal. I suggest that the hon. member for Calgary West do so at some point in time.

Quebecers will have to choose between a federal system in which they have very few powers and another one in which they will have 100 per cent of the powers in the Quebec Parliament, which has always been the heart and cradle of the Quebec nation, formerly referred to as the French Canadian nation. This nation will have the credibility and strength required to negotiate with Canada a mutually satisfactory agreement to get us out of the constitutional mess we are in.

I would like the hon. member to tell us if he would be prepared to talk his colleagues into accepting the referendum results if, as I suspect, it meant that Quebec achieved sovereignty and took full responsibility for its development in the future.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, June 14th, 1995]

Langlois and Crêtes, as well, yes, although there are not so many Crêtes in that area, I think.

I want people to realize that Quebecers have gone beyond the plumbing all the way to the architect's plan. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, are here to protect the interests of Quebec, which is why, during this debate on the redistribution of seats, we have tried to ensure that Quebecers are as well represented as possible. We are a few months away from a much more crucial decision which would not only ensure us an adequate representation, but also give us full control over our own development. I think this is what the future holds for the province of Quebec and this is what Quebecers will decide.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, place names like Saint-Roch-des-Aulnaies and Sainte-Louise-des-Aulnaies help me answer the hon. member's question. A few weeks ago, we had the opportunity to meet with mayors of that regional county municipality.

Our discussions dealt with the decentralization requested by various regions in Quebec. To go to that meeting, I had to travel 75 kilometres through the regional county municipality which includes those two communities, at one end of my riding.

That shows that having a larger territory would not be a suitable solution, because we already have to cover a very large territory.

However, I would like to suggest another solution. I think the hon. member for Bellechasse will agree. We realize that double representation should be eliminated because it serves no purpose. Today, we have federal MPs and provincial MNAs whose ridings overlap and whose jurisdictions overlap also. One never knows who is responsible for what. When people come to us in our ridings, the last thing they want to know about is whether their question concerns a federal or a provincial jurisdiction. The only thing they know is they want to see their member.

This is what Quebecers came to realize. A great many of them, over 70 per cent of Quebecers according to the polls, would like to deal with only one member of Parliament, someone who would represent them at a National Parliament in Quebec City and who could probably be sent to the joint Parliamentary assembly in Canada to make suggestions on how to manage the partnership between Quebec and Canada once Quebec has opted for sovereignty.

We would then be able to reduce a lot of the unnecessary costs and settle many of the problems we currently have. As federal MPs, if we have to call a provincial MLA who is not a member of our own party, we find it a bit awkward. Oftentimes, when our constituents come to us, they do not know if they will be able to find a solution to their problem at one level or the other. It is up to us to try to find out if there are provincial or federal programs that can be helpful to them. I think this is where we have a problem.

Finally, I want to say that in a region like mine, the riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, as well as in the riding of Bellechasse and all along the shores of the St. Lawrence, home to the only French-speaking community in North America, where a lot of Lévesques, Pelletiers, Ouellets are living-