Bernard Deshaies

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, October 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member, who is also a member of the Natural Resources Committee, a question further to his speech on ecology. My question is quite specific. Do you not think that we could have put all the billions of dollars that are going to be invested in the Hibernia project into projects other than petroleum projects, into renewable energy projects such as hydrogen, for example? What the Bloc quebecois is saying is that the federal government's interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction is not merely constitutional in nature, but involves amounts of money that Canadians, and therefore Quebecers, are paying for projects that are not viable financially or ecologically. Do you not think that better choices could have been made?

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, October 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask the hon. secretary of state why, with this bill, the government did not take the opportunity to clearly spell out the fact that provinces have jurisdiction over natural resources and did not define major thrusts for optimum co-operation and development of natural resources to promote job creation.

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, October 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I representative of the riding of Abitibi, in Quebec. As many members know, it is possibly the largest riding in Canada outside the Northwest Territories, with an area of 500,000 square kilometres. In my riding, natural resources are most important, be they forests, mines or hydroelectricity. It is my duty to support the amendment proposed on September 27 by my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois:

That this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-48, An Act to establish the Department of Natural Resources and to amend related Acts, given that the principle of the Bill does not provide for empowering the minister to compensate Quebec financially if it chooses to exercise its exclusive jurisdiction over natural resources itself, pursuant to the Constitution Act, 1867 and the Constitution Act, 1982.

Senator Gérald Beaudoin, a strong defender of the federal system, would surely share this opinion since, in an essay he wrote on the sharing of powers and entitled Partage des compétences: c'est comme un vêtement sur mesure , he recognized the limits of the spending powers of the federal government and the right of a province to ``opt out'' with financial compensation whenever the federal authority creates a new jointly funded, national program, provided the dissident province creates a similar program consistent with the national interests.

This bill brings nothing new, it is solely the creation of a new department, as part of a government reorganisation started in 1993 by the former Conservative prime minister, Ms. Kim Campbell. If the sole purpose of this bill was to merge two departments into one, with a view to saving money, improving efficiency and correcting the shortcomings found in the two previous bills creating the former departments, it would be easy, on the face of it, to accept it and even to support it.

However, it is rather obvious that with Bill C-48, the federal government is assuming powers and rights which are going to infringe upon an exclusive area of authority belonging to the provinces. It is totally unacceptable. As we, from the Bloc Quebecois, have been saying over and over again, this intrusion of the federal government leads to wasteful duplication and overlapping between the two levels of government, at great expense to Canadian and Quebec taxpayers.

We doubt that this bill is aimed at reducing this waste since its founding principles maintain the status quo and, even though departments are merged, they retain their mandate. If you go to the trouble of creating a new department, why not make sure at the same time that its operations are efficient and harmonized with the priorities of the provinces which, I remind you, are the leaders in the field and have exclusive jurisdiction over their own natural resources. Nothing in this bill gives the provinces exclusive jurisdiction over their natural resources, and no alternatives are suggested.

In 1982, during the negotiations on patriating the Constitution, and also during the negotiations on the Meech Lake Accord and the Charlottetown Accord, Quebec asked for the right to opt out-with compensation-of federal programs where it knew it could do a better job. Many of the parties concerned agree with this concept, which is even more appropriate when we are talking about natural resources, an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

I am sure many federalists will agree, and as I already pointed out, in certain publications Senator Beaudoin has referred to this as a beneficial alternative, reducing duplication and overlap.

For the time being, the only real change the average Quebec or Canadian citizen can see is that, instead of two ministers, we will have only one. There is nothing wrong with that per se , but the structure has not changed. Operating expenditures remain the same. There are no cuts. However, it is time to streamline operations for maximum efficiency, since all taxpayers are paying for the federal government's poor management.

One way to streamline the federal administration and make it more efficient would have been to redefine the role of the federal government in relation to the provinces, clarify the concept of provincial jurisdiction and opportunities for the provinces to manage their federal programs.

The federal government does not abide by its own Constitution, and all the provinces have paid dearly and will continue to do so for Ottawa's interventionism and centralist approach. Hon. members will recall the Trudeau government's energy policy that caused oil companies to be nationalized at an exorbitant price, only to be sold off a few years later.

The Athabasca tar sands project is anything but a financial success. As for Hibernia, it is an even bigger money gobbler. We will have to invest another billion dollars or more to support a project that was never essential to Canada's energy self-sufficiency, and no one knows whether further technical or financial problems will add even more to a bill that is already astronomical.

Western Canadians and my colleagues here in the House may wish to tell me later on whether they received as much money to search for new oil wells in Western Canada. In any case, Quebec never received any subsidies for its hydro dams.

The total bill for Hibernia, which will be several billion dollars, could have been channelled into research on new energy sources like hydrogen, while supporting the economies of the Maritimes, since the excuse for Hibernia was to create jobs for Eastern Canada. The government could have supported job creation in the Maritimes and used this money to give Canada a technological edge in this field on international markets instead of trying to look for new oil in difficult conditions at the cost of human lives, on drilling platforms off-shore-new oil at well above the price on world markets.

In the light of this unjustified spending, with no regard for the priorities of the provinces, one wonders whether the federal government knows what it is doing when it decides how to spend money in the provinces, especially in areas over which the provinces have jurisdiction.

Canadians are sometimes surprised to see the Bloc Quebecois here in this House. Perhaps today they will start to understand our long-standing demands, especially concerning natural resources. We are justified in demanding our rights, the rights of our province. This is also legitimate for the other provinces.

When the Natural Resources Committee, of which I am a member, studied clear cutting, the conclusions it came to were again to centralize authority for the sake of better performance. In opposition, the Bloc Quebecois wanted to show that co-operation would have been more effective because the initiative for reform must not come from the federal government but from the provinces themselves, since as I have said many times, they alone have the mandate to manage their resources.

The committee report would surely have been the same, but at the same time it would respect the provinces' powers.

Section 92-A of the Constitution Act, 1867, clearly states that mines and forests are exclusively in provincial jurisdiction. Is it right that the provinces cannot make their own decisions?

Unfortunately, federal intervention is too often to be expected.

The federal government starts with good intentions and ends up using its co-ordination role to become the one in charge. The usual scenario goes something like this: the federal government wants to be there to help co-ordinate, which, in itself, is good in such a big country, but as it co-ordinates, it decides that it should also run things. While it is at it, why not set the direction for the program and while it is doing that, why not be in charge?

Each time it is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, the federal government comes along with its dollars and sets the mandate.

Spending the money of Canadians and Quebecers does not give the government the right to meddle in fields of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. A down-to-earth example in natural resources is the program to encourage mining exploration investment in Quebec. The Mining Association of Canada and the Canadian Prospectors Association think that this program is excellent. If this bill recognized the provinces' exclusive jurisdiction over natural resources and opting out with federal compensation to make Quebec's program more effective, this incentive program could really grow and create many well-paid jobs.

This co-operative attitude already existed in the 1980s and yielded excellent results. For example, the Aur Resources Mine opened near Val-d'Or with an investment of some $300 million, creating 150 direct jobs and at least twice as many indirectly.

To end my speech in this debate, I would like to quote again what Jean Lesage, the former Liberal Premier of Quebec, said in an address to the Empire and Canadian Club in Toronto in 1964. His words were eloquent: "Quebec seeks to obtain all the powers needed to assert itself economically, socially and politically. If the provinces do not pursue the same objective, Quebec will necessarily move towards a special status reflecting both the particular characteristics of its people and the more extensive role that they want to give their government".

[Department Of Industry Act, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. I would like to point out to the Chair that the hon. member asked me why the Bloc Quebecois's amendment was limited to Quebec when it could have applied to Ontario as well and even to all the provinces of Canada.

Why? Because Bill C-46 is applied by the Federal Office of Regional Development only in Quebec and Ontario. Also, I would like to say to the hon. member, who lives in a region like mine, that they may be better served if they have a different development agency covered by a different law. The development projects in his riding may be better run; in my riding, the Federal Office of Regional Development has some good initiatives, of course, but through Bill C-46, we want the Department of Industry to decentralize and blend its ideas with those of the provincial agency, especially for regional initiatives, to make better use of the money invested.

[Department Of Industry Act, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer this question as well as I can. Instead of limiting my colleague's amendment to Quebec, it could be limited to Quebec and Ontario, since in Bill C-46, the Federal Office of Regional Development applies only to Ontario and Quebec.

Also in your question, you said that your riding was like mine.

[Department Of Industry Act, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for making a few points I may have omitted, but I would like to point out that my remarks apply to the new Bill C-46, through which the Department of Industry will take over, so to speak, the Federal Office of Regional Development. I said in my little speech that I would have liked the bill to contain clauses underscoring the advantages of letting each province, Ontario and Quebec in particular in this case, choose where and how to invest federal government funds.

It is true that in the past, the work done by the Federal Office of Regional Development was highly regarded in various regions including mine, but when the hon. member indicates that the forestry people were very happy with the federal government's role in reforestation efforts, I would like to say that my region benefited very little from this project.

We hear that, with the upcoming cutbacks, the Federal Office will not inject any more money into private industries. The new policies do not provide any money for the tourism industry for one thing. I wonder how the amounts will be set to help a region like mine when it needs money precisely for forestry, while forest resources are already scarce. If we do not have enough money for tourist facilities-and we are told this is not a

government priority- how can we help my region-and not the Lac-Saint-Jean region where they may not need as much money for tourism because they already have good facilities? How can we be address specific needs when the government sets priorities for us?

The federal government's goal is to help the regions but this approach, instead of showing good will, simply hampers development. I do not know whether I should say something else on this subject for the hon. member's benefit, but I think that if this bill had let the provinces and especially the regions choose how to achieve their own development, I think we would have been much more likely to support this bill. However, given the bill's current wording, because it does not say anything about the need to adapt to specific regional needs, as Mr. Lesage used to say, I think that we cannot support it.

[Department Of Industry Act, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss the amendment to the amendment tabled by the hon. member for Edmonton Northwest and say that I oppose it. This new amendment nullifies the amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois member for Trois-Rivières to oppose second reading of this bill in order to emphasize the provinces' exclusive jurisdiction regarding regional development.

As we have said many times, duplication and overlapping within the federal administration as well as between the two levels of government result in useless and costly spending for Canadian and Quebec taxpayers. We seriously doubt that this bill will reduce this waste since the main principles underlying this legislation aim at maintaining the status quo between the respective mandates of the various departments, while regrouping them.

If we go through the exercise of creating a new department, then why not ensure unity and harmony among the various measures taken by this new department, so as to make them more efficient and cost effective. We are under the impression that this exercise is only done for cosmetic reasons and that there is no will to make true changes.

During the election campaign, the Liberal government bragged about implementing a single-window concept to improve its services and to reduce waste in the public service. The government had a unique opportunity to restructure its various departments, make savings in the process, and keep the largest possible number of civil servants to provide a better service to its clientele. Now, this government will have to demonstrate that such a structure does indeed result in savings.

For example, in this context, an information centre for businesses has been set up in Montreal. This centre will of course improve customer services, but was there not already a provincial structure which could have agreed to give the business community in Quebec relevant information without any duplication? We are once again creating a parallel structure and we doubt whether this will generate any savings within the federal government machinery.

If we want to rationalize government expenditures, we must review our structures within the context of all existing tools provided for by the provinces and target only areas of federal jurisdiction. In my opinion, the Auditor General of Canada would be the very person to make suggestions since, year after year, he has been highlighting changes that could be made in some of the departments in order that public funds be spent more efficiently.

I believe we are entitled to require that any further restructuring of the federal machinery proposed by the Liberal government here in this House results in savings for Canadians and Quebecers.

As Bill C-46 also extends the powers of the Minister to regional development areas, I would like to take this opportunity to touch on a point of crucial importance in my view. As Bloc Quebecois critic for regional development, Western Quebec, I object to Bill C-46 as it reads now because it contains no provision that would put an end to duplication and overlapping in regional development and allow Quebec and Ontario to take full and exclusive responsibility for their own regional economic development.

First, why is Ontario and Quebec development not governed by a specific bill such as the one on the Department of Western Economic Diversification or the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency?

If the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec were to be established pursuant to specific legislation, it would be easier to see the powers, duties and functions of the minister in charge and the related objectives.

Regional development agencies were a way for the federal government to compensate for the effects of uneven economic growth in various areas of the country, while it looked at improving the most competitive sectors or strengthening the most efficient, in particular those focused on export markets. In many cases the program was solely a band-aid solution for areas with non-performing economies. In short, the regional development program was designed to limit damage in remote areas

where investment was scarce or to try to generate new growth dynamics.

Part II of the bill contains nice and sound objectives that the minister should achieve, as we can see on page 4: a ) promote economic development in areas of Ontario and Quebec where low incomes and slow economic growth are prevalent or where opportunities for productive employment are inadequate; b ) emphasize long-term economic development and sustainable employment and income creation; and c ) focus on small and medium-sized enterprises and the development and enhancement of entrepreneurial talent.

I think that it would be an achievement if, over the next ten years, the Federal Office of Regional Development which, under this bill, is to come under the authority of the Minister of Industry were to reach and maintain these objectives in our regions. The truth is they were never really achieved efficiently and the effectiveness of the program has been declining in the last few years. For example, regions like mine are short of investment money, the main tool to influence the development in a given area. It is important to make available enough money to provide investors and business people with the necessary levers.

With reduced budgets-which will be further reduced with the new reform-and a decision-making structure that does not permit the targetting of priorities defined by the regions, how can the FORD(Q) be taken seriously?

Second, why is the minister not taking the opportunity to include in the bill the will to harmonize his regional development programs with those of the provinces? In Quebec, policies aimed at shifting decision-making powers to regional development councils, which were initiated under the Liberal government and pursued by the Quebec Premier, Mr. Parizeau, who recently announced the appointment of regional delegates whith a mandate to receive the regions' specific requests, are examples of how research, and awareness of grassroot concerns can lead to greater efficiency and better use of the money still available.

People in the regions know full well that the federal and provincial governments have no money to waste. Therefore, the desire on the part of the minister to harmonize his programs with those of the provinces would be for him a step toward making every development dollar count and, eventually, to realize that numbers show that the best way would be to transfer these sums to the provinces, thus eliminating duplication and overlapping.

Depending on where they live, Quebecers have a different vision of what regional development should be.

Whenever decision-makers and entrepreneurs are able to channel their efforts in the same direction, they achieve great success. The Beauce area is often given as an example of this. This area has benefited from the presence of risk-taking entrepreneurs and from a lot of investments. Not all regions have access to the same amount of capital to allow developers to stimulate the economy. The situation in my riding illustrates perfectly how financial needs can vary.

The main economic activities in the riding of Abitibi are forestry and mining. In the forestry area, while saw-mills, paper mills and finished products industries are keeping up with the new technology and are able to finance it, reforestation and tree-growing companies are having a hard time and would deserve to be helped.

All these businesses are interconnected and must co-ordinate their activities if they are to develop harmoniously. There are the big companies which, tomorrow, will need the timber which the forestry industry has had to grow and develop at an increasingly quicker pace as the industry unfortunately has to cope with an extremely meager timber stock. Forest management, needless to say, was not always a priority in the past.

I think this shows that regional development is not easy if priorities are not in line with the region's economy.

Another example of regional development, which concerns my own riding and probably many ridings in Northern Ontario and this applies to my previous example as well-is developing the mining industry.

Mining is, in fact, restricted to certain regions in Quebec and Ontario, so that regional development in this sector follows the same pattern. It is said, for instance, that mining and forestry are specific to the northern regions of Quebec and Ontario. These industries give a very good return on investment, but the problem is that exploration requires vast amounts of capital.

My point is that regional development in my riding could focus on the mining industry, for instance, but to be successful, there would have to be a consensus among the parties concerned, to ensure that sufficient financial resources are available.

Finally, to prove my point that action must be focussed and that the provinces should be responsible for regional development, I would like to read what former Quebec Premier Jean Lesage had to say here in Ottawa at the federal-provincial conference from July 19 to 22, 1965. That was quite a few years ago.

Mr. Lesage said that to be effective, regional development policies had to meet three conditions: be adapted to the specific needs of the regions; be implemented by the government in the best position to do so; and reflect the general economic and social policy of the government of the province where the regions are located. Adapting such policies to Quebec's regional needs would seem difficult to achieve at the federal level.

This was 1965, and things may not have changed much since then.

Mr. Lesage also said that the Government of Quebec was in the best position-I may recall this was said by a Liberal Premier-to implement a truly effective regional policy.

[Federalism, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, leaks of the working discussion paper to be used by the Minister of Human Resources Development confirm for us that the ghosts of centralizing federalism are on the move again. These ghosts which we had hoped to see disappear forever are supposedly preparing to cut $2.3 billion in transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary education so that the federal government can meddle further in this field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Why does this government want greater visibility for what it does in fields of exclusive provincial jurisdiction? Does the federal government want to give the impression that it is in a better position to solve the existing problems?

In both cases, the federal government is showing complete disregard for the provinces' ability to act and members of the Bloc Quebecois do not want to support that idea.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just spoke on Bill C-22, the bill to cancel the privatization project of Pearson airport. I would like him to tell us about the millions of dollars that are being spent. It was said earlier that perhaps the Liberal government should give these companies thirty million dollars in compensation rather than wait for court action where they might get more. Could the hon. member tell me whether or not such monies are actually available, that is, if Pearson Airport brings in that much money, how come we have so little money to keep regional airports open, why is it that the Minister of Transport wants to close our regional airports?

These airports mean a lot to us. In remote areas like Northern Quebec, where air travel is the only means of transportation, what are people going to do when they want to travel south? How do we measure the cost? If the Val d'Or airport, for example, is to be closed on the medium term for lack of money, why not divert some of the money from profitable airports, like Pearson and maybe Montreal, to bring some equity nationally and thereby permit us to travel by air?

Maybe my colleague has an opinion on this and on the way to make the system equitable.

[Francophone And Acadian Communities, June 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the spokesperson for the Coalition franco-ontarienne also said that the government was cutting down to the bone.

How can the minister make substantial cuts in subsidies to organizations that are out there to defend the interests of francophones, before deciding on a comprehensive development policy for francophone and Acadian communities, which is on the drawing board in his department?