Paul Crête

[Recall Act, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the debate on the proposed act to provide for the recall of members of the House of Commons. This bill is a good example of an idea that has its merits but does not quite make it. The purpose is to ensure that the member is worthy of the mandate he received from his constituents. The problem has been with us since the beginnings of the democratic system. We have seen this in the past in many countries, and though people have tried to find a solution, they have failed to come up with satisfactory answers. In countries where recall exists, it very seldom occurs, but there are also some outlandish situations.

If we consider the bill before the House today, I will explain why I said it does not quite make it. It is certainly not attractive in its present form because, among other things, it opens the door to all kinds of political intrigue. I will give an example. If this bill is passed, it would give more power to party organizations. Take for instance, a riding where a member was elected with less than 50 per cent of the vote, or the case of an independent member, like, for instance our colleague here in the House who represents the riding of Beauce. I am not saying that politicians might actually do this, but the parties might get together and decide to start a petition to challenge a seat held by an independent member, who would not have the same political clout as these parties, and a new election would be called, not to challenge the performance of the member but just to win another seat. And this may have important repercussions, one way or another.

What started out as a good intention expressed by the Reform Party could have unacceptable consequences like giving even more weight to the party machine at the expense of the member representing his or her riding. In addition, according to the current legal interpretation of the political party financing

legislation, if this act providing for the recall of members of the House of Commons went into effect, it would become an appalling form of lobbying for those who finance political parties, and who are not necessarily individuals. For example, companies, banks or unions on the other side of the fence could decide in a given situation to make a member lose his seat, not because of poor performance but because his ideas are different from theirs. In this regard, our legislation governing political party financing is not tight enough at the present time to allow us to put in place a concept such as the recall of members.

Another perverse element which is not in the legislation must be avoided, namely the systematic use of recall to remove members from the House. This bill provides that such petitions can be accepted 18 months after an election. Politicians could easily make systematic efforts to question the mandates of members from the other party, from the other side of the House, thus creating instability which is totally inconsistent with the goals and objectives of our parliamentary system. We cannot afford to transfer to a parliamentary system such as ours ideas which may have been successful in a different type of system but which would not have the same effect here. I think that these perverse effects must be avoided at all cost.

Something else to keep in mind is that we must not over-legislate, and in this regard I think that the Reform Party is contradicting itself. You do not solve a problem by passing a law and damming every little stream. In this Parliament, if the mandate of one or two individuals should be reconsidered because of something they did, I think that it is not necessary to pass a law that would have a major effect on the parliamentary system and the electoral system and unpredictable negative effects.

My colleague from the Reform Party just gave the example of Charlottetown. If we had had such a law when the Charlottetown Accord failed and all of Canada started to recall all the members who had spoken in favour of that horrible agreement, I feel that we would have had a constitutional crisis and an even more obvious parliamentary crisis, especially since about a year passed between the Charlottetown Accord and the next federal election, the same time it would have taken to come up with something to challenge the mandates of the people who had been elected.

So, this solution does not seem viable, in my view. It does not seem like an appropriate solution to the problem which may be created by a member of Parliament who does not properly fulfill his mandate. Other forms of representations can be made and actions can be taken by the constituents, without jeopardizing someone's mandate because of his ideas.

Let us not forget too that we sometimes have free votes on moral issues and on bills. Some pressure groups could conceivably resort to the recall process because of just one issue representing a very minor part of the work done by a member.

I also want to say a word on the short text-some 200 words-to justify the application for recall. We are in politics. We see the same reality from different perspectives. That text could take different forms and be subject to various interpretations, thus generating an instability which is not appropriate, considering that, in the next few years, Parliament will have to consider major constitutional changes.

It is because of the strength of our parliamentary institutions-and this must be recognized-that a party seeking a radical transformation of our country's political structure, can come here and express its views. We must ensure that this democratic process continues to exist. Indeed, that institution is still the best democratic tool available.

Let me mention a few issues which I consider more urgent regarding MPs' mandate. I already said it, but I will repeat it now: We must first ensure that we have a political party financing process act which is airtight. We must ensure that only individuals, and not corporate entities, can make contributions to a political party.

When you look at the list of the people who are presently contributing to the financing of political parties like the one currently in power or, in the past, the Conservative Party or any other party that is satisfied with following the letter of the law, you realize why their hands are tied in so many situations. You understand why, in the social program reform for example, government action is much more limited and softer than what the public expected. This is because this party's financial backers, if not handed control, at least exercise moral influence over it. When these backers are banks, unions, corporate bodies, the voters are not a priority and, in that sense, the intent of the Representation Act is distorted. Therefore, it appears to me that legislation to that effect is much more urgently required.

The second element on which I believe it appropriate to move very quickly is to make sure that when people are elected, they come here with a clear, well-defined mandate and that they respect it. In politics, people are always right in the end. We live in a society in which-the Conservative Party of Canada can attest to that-if political parties retreat in their ivory tower and forget about the people who brought them to power, they eventually pay dearly for it. In our political system, a four- to five-year term of office seems very reasonable.

Each one of us, the 205 new members, knows it to be true. If, after 18 months in office, we were asked to perform as efficiently as those who have been fortunate enough to be here for two, three or four years, it would render the system less efficient. Contrary to the Reform Party's objective, this would further diminish voter confidence in the institutions which represent them.

To conclude, I would say that what we have here is the age-old problem of democratic representation by delegation. It has been with us for a long time. The solution we are being offered is not the right one. I believe that we should give it some more thought. This bill should be dropped and instead we should start a reflection on a priority issue, the financing of political parties.

[Research And Development, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. Quebec has 30 federal research establishments that employ 2,533 workers, accounting for 11 per cent of jobs in federal facilities of this type in Canada, while the Chalk River centre in Ontario alone has 2,000 employees.

Does the Minister of Industry agree that there is a major imbalance in the distribution of federal research facilities in Canada and that Quebec does not receive its fair share of federal jobs in research and development?

[Criminal Code, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I had the opportunity to ask a question with regard to manpower training and I could feel the minister does not really understand the situation in Quebec. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to give more information so that people understand the basis for the consensus existing in Quebec on the issue of claiming jurisdiction over manpower training.

You know there is, in Quebec, an agency called Forum sur l'emploi. It is a forum for stakeholders from every field of endeavour, such as social sciences, economics, or culture, and they all came to the same conclusion: "Quebec forms a specific region in the economic, cultural and social terms. It is a natural unit and, if we want to implement a dynamic employment policy, if we want Quebecers to make the best possible use of their human resources, we must have control over all the development programs related to manpower training".

This is all the easier because both the Canadian Constitution and the British North America Act state that education comes under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, the issue of manpower training as we now call it, including the reform of social security programs and continued training, should also belong to Quebec. Quebec would then have all the necessary tools for its development.

We must remember it was only in the 1942 Constitution that unemployment insurance was turned over to the federal government. Before that, provinces also had jurisdiction in that area. So the Fathers of Confederation really meant for anything related to training and manpower, or just simply training, to be a provincial responsibility, in particular because of Quebec's French identity.

That is why I am asking the government why it does not agree to that totally logical request, which has met with unanimous approval in Quebec, and allow the province to have control over the development of its human resources, which are, and which will increasingly be, the source of all development.

By making the fullest use of our potential, we will build a society better suited to adapt quickly to all aspects of competition on the global market. There is always, in the background, the special situation of Quebec, the only place in America where you find a majority of francophones, which implies different practices, in particular regarding population mobility.

As regards mobility we cannot apply the same policies, objectives and national standards to Quebec as we do to the rest of Canada. That is why I am asking the government to explain its lack of understanding of the Quebec fact and to tell us why it does not accept our request, which is made not only by the Bloc Quebecois but by all stakeholders in Quebec.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's remarks and I was shocked by her referring to "chronic use of unemployment insurance" as if implying that people who are on UI, year after year, or rather frequently, are doing it on purpose. I could not help but think of the peat bog workers in Rivière Ouelle, or the hotel and inn employees in Rivière-du-Loup, or the forestry workers in Saint-Jean-de-Dieu and wonder what they must think of what is going on in this government.

This government, which was elected to create jobs, has not been giving much hope to people in the regions. It has been telling them: "We are going to create a two-tier unemployment insurance system which will penalize those who use it often; at the same time, we are going to reduce the investment tax credit which allowed regions to create permanent jobs and seasonal workers to go on from seasonal jobs to regular jobs, all year round". By reducing the investment tax credit, the message the government is giving them is this: "It is your own fault if you

are still on UI. It is your problem and it is up to you to solve it". The government gives them a contradictory message.

In the outlying regions, people are reacting to the fact that the government is getting ready to cut transport subsidies in an unfair manner, without even looking at the economic impact. For the past 50 or 60 years, in eastern Quebec and Atlantic Canada, there has been a tradition of transport subsidies which could disappear without anyone knowing the impact it will have if the rules of the game, of the market, are not respected. People who work in these areas and who will be hurt by these decisions are wondering what is going on in Ottawa, and why decisions which are detrimental to regional development are made.

The other example is the government's withdrawal from transport, airports, harbours and railways. It is getting out of all these areas at the same time and people are asking me what a radio personality was asking me the other day, which is: Who is going to stop all this? Who is going to get a handle on this? I would like the member to tell me how she would cut wasteful expenditures and increase revenues since, in her remarks, she talked a lot about higher revenues and what we could all do to do our fair share. Would she consider taxing family trusts and thus bring some degree of fairness to our tax system?

[Manpower Training, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is confusing this with his evaluation of the administrative agreements which he proposed to 10 native Indian groups. According to former minister André Bourbeau's estimate, his stubborn refusal to transfer federal responsibilities will waste more than $750 million in the next three years and maintain the present confusion which penalizes Quebec's unemployed. Is he aware of that?

[Manpower Training, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The minister claims that the Government of Quebec does not understand the federal proposal for manpower training. Indeed, it is the minister himself who does not want to understand and who refuses to accept the Quebec consensus expressed at the employment forum which brought together all stakeholders from the business, educational and labour communities in 1989.

Does the minister not realize that what he is offering Quebec perpetrates confusion between the federal and provincial governments and in no way reflects the general consensus in Quebec? Does the minister realize that he is the one who does not understand Quebec?

[Co-Operatives, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak on National Co-op Week.

As an anecdote, I could mention that all primary schools in Quebec have a school savings bank and I remember that one of the first things I did as an organizer was to look after the savings bank in our school. For that reason, I am especially pleased to speak on this statement.

As the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who seems to have held a similar position, said, the importance of co-operatives throughout Canada is evident. In view of the size of the co-op movement in Quebec's economy and the place it has held in Quebecers' recent history, let me point out the work this movement does and its special contribution to our society.

Co-ops played and still play a vital role in Quebec's economic development. Voluntary membership, democratic organization, training of members, redistribution of surpluses in the community and limits on return on capital are all principles that square with Quebecers' thinking and explain the development of this movement in Quebec. Furthermore, co-ops are part of the lives of Quebecers from primary school until they die-there are even funeral co-operatives.

Whether we talk about financial, farm, housing, consumer, labour or any other kind of co-op, the co-operative movement is healthy and continues to grow in Quebec. Moreover, a new generation of co-op members is assured with the rise of co-ops in the student community through "interco-operation", twinning co-ops from different fields of activity; the Société de développement coopératif in particular promotes this.

The Desjardins movement is, of course, the pride of Quebec's co-op community. Stretching across Canada and involved in international co-operation projects in many other countries, the Desjardins group manages total assets estimated at over $75 billion. Quebec's co-op movement comprises over 3,300 co-ops with more than 5.9 million members and in excess of 60,000 employees. A major success story.

The vigour of the co-op movement in Quebec is due to the strong feeling of solidarity among Quebecers. We have always stuck together to ensure our own growth, often under difficult conditions. This solidarity will soon bring Quebecers to sovereignty, which must be based on economic sovereignty. The Desjardins movement, among others, has played a significant role in this by giving us confidence in one another.

In closing, I wish to thank and congratulate all co-operators in Quebec and Canada for their volunteer work, without which the co-op movement would not be what it is today.

[Job Creation, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is launching a major media campaign under the theme: "Jobs and Growth". It is putting on quite a show!

However, having carefully reviewed the three documents tabled regarding social programs and finances, we are forced to recognize that the federal government is putting forth no positive job creation measures. It is nothing but an empty slogan.

The government has set specific deficit reduction targets but none regarding job creation. The government has no constructive job strategy or policy. Yet this is the government that had put job creation at the forefront of its election campaign.

What initiatives did this Liberal government take? It has cut in social programs to force the unemployed onto welfare, thus passing the buck to the provinces.

The federal government is short of ideas. It should let the provinces take over; they are in a much better position to look after their own economic development.

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member, which relates more to the human aspect of this bill.

When reading the amendment we proposed, one realizes that the bill really does little to protect those it covers against possible undue solicitation. I refer, for example, to the fact that the person giving unauthorized sources access to a beneficiary's personal information, for commercial purposes, telemarketing or whatever, would not be liable to prosecution under the Criminal Code. This would open up quite a window of opportunity to those wanting to take advantage of clients who might be more vulnerable to such an approach.

Does the hon. member not fear that, if we adopt this bill, we might create another situation like the one we now face under the Unemployment Insurance Act, concerning the entitlement of related people working for the same employer, for example, and where there is something akin to harassment from Revenue Canada? In these cases, studies and inquiries might be more justified, but in others, they may not be. One thing is certain, this is time-consuming.

Does the hon. member not think that this bill, as presented, might subject the elderly to the difficult situation that UI recipients are now facing? Second, as I said, will we not be subjecting the elderly to a series of solicitations, due to the fact that some people could have a financial interest in communicating the lists of those concerned by the legislation?

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this bill to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.

On reading the bill, I felt that I sensed Pierre Elliott Trudeau's ghost reading over my shoulder. This bill contains everything that has characterized Canada's federal system, especially since the Trudeau years. First of all, Quebec's identity is diluted. At the same time, an effort is made to create a culture and a heritage that exist nowhere but in the minds of those who created this artificial federal country, Canada.

The bill says that the Department of Canadian Heritage was created to instill in Canadians a deep feeling of identity and belonging based on bilingualism and multiculturalism. Well, there is quite a long way to go.

Here are a few statistics on bilingualism, because you might have lovely images, high-sounding speeches, but there is nothing like reality to help you understand. Statistics Canada's figures, which should not be challenged by the government or other interested parties, show the assimilation rate of francophones in Newfoundland was 24.7 per cent in 1986 and 55.3 per cent in 1991. What a success! In Prince Edward Island, it was 42.6 per cent in 1986 and 47.6 per cent in 1991, an increase of 5 per cent. These are signs that bilingualism, at least the model that has been proposed, has not worked very well.

I shall give another example. In Nova Scotia, the assimilation rate was 31.8 per cent in 1986 and 41.1 per cent in 1991, an increase of 9.3 per cent. At that rate, in the time it takes to create the Department of Canadian Heritage, there will be no French-speaking minority left in the rest of Canada.

The second element is multiculturalism. Multiculturalism, which is as difficult to pronounce as it is to understand, is a product of the thinking of the Trudeau years.

To support this statement, I will quote Claude Corbeau, the rector at the University of Quebec in Montreal, who does not boast about being a Quebec separatist. In his policy report, he said that "multiculturalism may marginalize Quebec's identity". This is a rector at a Quebec university who popularized a certain image of Quebec's culture and reality.

His reasoning is not so hard to understand. Let us look at the areas that will come under the purview of Canadian Heritage. This is duplication country. On that there can be no compromise from Quebec. These are not minor sectors; they are of vital importance to Quebec.

The arts, heritage, culture, broadcasting are all in there. These sectors are not purely economic. It is a matter of survival. In broadcasting, for example, Quebec even created Radio-Québec, not yesterday but in the 1940s under Duplessis. Since then, we had to fight for every inch, while the Supreme Court, which always leans on the same side, kept telling us that we had no control over this important cultural element.

Culture gives us another good example of duplication, as we have two stakeholders in cultural matters in one country. We heard earlier the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell tell us about the Canadian people and therein lies the problem. As long as we do not recognize that the Canadian Confederation was founded by at least two peoples and by the Natives who were here before us, as long as we do not recognize the equal value and contribution of these founding peoples, we are developing what I would call an utopia, the utopia of the Department of Canadian Heritage. Try to find another country in the world where you have to qualify the word "heritage" by adding "Canadian".

Have you heard about the department of Norwegian or Swedish heritage? A simple, normal, natural country would not feel the need to add anything to "department of heritage" as it should be understood that it is that country's heritage. The problem is that, in Canada, people never realized that there are in fact two countries.

There is another provision explaining the department's role. It says that the department is to develop and offer programs which support a strong sense of identity among Canadians. But you cannot force a sense of identity on people. Let me give you a few examples which show why Quebec cannot really identify with the rest of the country.

During the war, when the referendum on conscription was held, 96 per cent of voters in my riding of Kamouraska opposed that measure. That response pretty well reflected the overall results for French-speaking people in Quebec. In spite of that strong opposition, the federal government went ahead and imposed conscription. You will have to talk about Canadian heritage for a long time and show pictures of those who died overseas before you can convince us, considering that we did not even want to go to war. This is not to say that we overlook the contribution made by veterans, but the fact is that this episode deeply affected people.

There is another episode which also deeply affected people. In this case, it is the Liberals and in particular the current Prime Minister who are responsible. I am referring to the 1982 unilateral patriation of the Constitution.

The government can say what it wants about a department established to promote a strong sense of identity among Canadians, it can try to force it upon us, but this will not work. As long as we are not accepted for who we are and as long as our

signature does not appear on the Constitution, the government cannot expect us to promote Canadian heritage.

Let me give you one last example which is of particular interest to me. In the seventies, the community of Forillon was expropriated to create a federal park. Today, that park is a good tourist attraction for the region, but I can tell you that back in the seventies, those who were forced to move did not develop a strong sense of Canadian identity, nor would they have seen the need to establish a department with such a mandate.

There are plenty of sectors which relate to the French reality in Quebec and in North America.

We cannot be forced to accept that as a model for all of Canada. Quebec has its own identity, which must be recognized by Quebekers, by Canadians and by our society as a whole because of our decent contribution to it.

To conclude, we are against the establishment of a Canadian Heritage Department because this would be a constant negation of the exclusive jurisdiction needed by Quebec to ensure its own cultural, economic and social development. In order for Quebec to contribute to the richness of North American life, its needs must be met. As long as the Canadian government does not recognize and acknowledge this reality, francophones in North America will continue to insist on ensuring their survival.

Today, the proposed Canadian Heritage Department is yet another proof for Quebecers that the only way to ensure their development is to have their own country.