Jean Landry

[Supply, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my friend's presentation. I agree with him, our financial situation is critical, but there are solutions nevertheless.

A while ago, I heard him speak of the Progressive Conservative Party which I believe is part of history. I think that when you are really optimistic, whether you are a government party, a person or a group, you look to the future. Therefore, we must widen our horizons and determine what aspects of our taxation system can be changed.

For example, since we are here to represent the population, I think it is important that we propose solutions whenever we criticize. I do believe that together we will succeed in addressing the problem of the enormous deficit of our country.

[Western Grain Transportation Act, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and speak on behalf of the official opposition regarding Bill C-66. This bill to amend the Western Grain Transportation Act, Bill C-66, has two main objectives.

The first is to implement measures to make rail shipments under the Western Grain Transportation Act, the WGTA, more efficient, in order to avoid the grain transport problems that a lack of railway cars caused last year. The problem was, in fact, that the railway cars were being rotated too slowly. The second is to eliminate subsidies on wheat movements to Mexico, which is on the brink of taking retaliatory measures against Canada.

I doubt that Canada will meet these objectives. First of all, the bill's scope is too limited and it is far from certain that it will be sufficient to prevent a situation such as that which arose last year regarding the lack of railway cars. We must also ask ourselves why the federal government has tabled this bill containing urgent measures. Does the government intend, in the near future, to table a much more substantial bill to substantially amend the WGTA? The draft bill on major reforms to the WGTA has been around for more than a year.

The WGTA has had a destabilizing and unhealthy effect on rail transport. Its effect has been to considerably distort the rail market. Take for example the subsidy of over $550 million that rail carriers receive for shipping western grain. This subsidy was distributed among all the rail carriers in addition to the very profitable network in the west, while a large part of the secondary network is in the east, and remains in a deficit position. It is understandable, under such conditions, that pressure by rail carriers to rationalize their network is strongest in the east.

In addition, the government considers preserving the rail network used to transport western grain an issue of national interest. In fact, the federal government has imposed a moratorium on abandonment of railway lines used to transport western grain. Many of these lines are nevertheless under-used and the western rail network has never really been rationalized.

From the viewpoint of privatizing CN, and given the mounting competitive pressures on the Canadian rail network, it is imperative and urgent that such a rationalization take place. It must, however, be carried out on the entire network of both national carriers.

Rationalizing the eastern network would only undermine the competitiveness of western carriers which would be stuck with an inefficient network. This is why the Bloc Quebecois has proposed a motion to lift the moratorium on the abandonment of western rail lines. Perhaps I may repeat it here.

To allow for fair and effective restructuring of the Canadian railway system and to ensure that our national railway carriers will be competitive in the future, the House urges the government to proceed with the following:

Cancel the order in council concerning the moratorium on abandonment of railway lines used for grain transportation in western Canada.

Revise the Western Grain Transportation Act and procedures for allocating grain transportation subsidies, so as to avoid distortion on the railway transportation market. It is the opinion of this House that allowing the railway transportation sector to operate on a more commercial basis would be beneficial for Canada.

Ensure that the criteria used by the National Transportation Agency to determine the merits of applications by railway companies to abandon railway lines are applied uniformly across Canada and to the entire railway network.

We make this request because the criteria used by the federal government to allow the abandonment of railway lines are extremely narrow and show a lack of vision with respect to transportation.

This government takes a dollars and cents approach to a sector that is crucial to economic development, especially in the regions. For instance, when reviewing applications for abandonment, it fails to consider the economic impact of operating a railway line. It is only concerned about the commercial viability of the line for the carrier. It is clear that negative economic impact of the abandonment of certain lines in Canada has been

more significant than the operating losses incurred by the carriers.

We realize that the railway network of Canada's two major railway carriers must be restructured if they are to be viable once again and able to compete with other carriers. Unless our railway carriers increase their productivity, they will not have the resources to update equipment and maintain a first class network.

However, the railways are vital to the national interest, and the government cannot afford to dismantle certain lines if it means losing major economic spin-offs. It is essential that the government take into account all possible economic repercussions when considering the application to abandon a railway line. Unfortunately, the financial vision of the federal government and its Department of Transport is simply too short-sighted to provide us with a modern and efficient intermodal transport system.

A sovereign Quebec would be better able to establish an effective intermodal transport policy reflecting the real needs of its people, as it would have control over all modes of transport. In particular, it would be in a better position to understand regional transport problems. We have no objection to the federal government withdrawing from the transport sector but it should do so completely by transferring regulatory powers and without destroying existing facilities simply because of financial considerations.

Let us take the example of the Chibougamau-Chapais-Chambord line in the Lac-Saint-Jean region. Many thousands of jobs are at stake in the softwood lumber, mineral, newsprint, pulp and precision cutting sectors. Eliminating train service, with or without transfer to a railhead in the Lac-Saint-Jean region, would have dramatic repercussions for 10 out of 15 businesses without a transfer and would affect profitability and result in eventual closure for 12 of them with or without a transfer.

In Abitibi, diverting all rail traffic to the road system would generate additional revenues of $830,000 the first year for the Quebec government, while the federal government's tax revenues would go down by $510,000 a year over the same period. On the other hand, increased road use in the Abitibi region would cost at least an extra $4.8 million a year.

As we can see, a traffic shift from rail to road would result in major cost increases especially since the local road system is in pitiful shape.

In spite of Transport Canada's efforts, roads, the bearing capacity of which is not even known, continue to wear down. Increased road traffic would not only make the road surface grind away faster, but it could jeopardize the road base in a very short time.

The government will indeed have to look at several issues in developing the future national rail transportation policy that Transport Canada had promised for this year. Unfortunately, nothing in the bill before us today addresses these substantive issues.

All this bill does is eliminate backtracking from Thunder Bay and impose storage charges on cars used for in-transit grain storage.

Bill C-66 makes only minor changes to the Western Grain Transportation Act, changes that will only marginally improve rail transportation in Western Canada.

Eliminating this practice of backtracking, where it was often most cost-effective for the shipper to ship Prairie grain to Thunder Bay and have it backtrack as far west as Winnipeg than shipping it directly to the United States at commercial rates, will save an estimated $4 million.

This amount, released by the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, will be used, however, to reduce average freight rates, that is to say the price paid by producers to ship wheat and barley.

No cuts will be made before the budget is tabled. The government is careful not to make any major or significant changes, changes which are nonetheless essential if we want to have an efficient transportation system.

The government is motivated by fear, the fear of a debate on the principle behind this issue. It is not only deplorable but also worrisome that the government not attempt to rectify a situation that could have a major negative impact on the Canadian transportation network and the Canadian economy. That is why we have presented a motion to force the Liberal government to act as soon as possible on this.

Over a year ago, on January 24, 1994, the Grain Transportation Agency made recommendations to expedite the streamlining of sidings. The information I am providing you comes from these recommendations.

First of all, regarding the Crow rate, the report suggests paying the subsidy to western grain producers and not to the railway companies, a position that is garnering increasing support. However, this is a form of assistance to western economic diversification that would be acceptable if the transition period is a reasonable one-the report mentions four years-and if after the transition period, the subsidy is transferred to an income support account to which all Canadian and Quebec producers would have access. That is, in fact, the position taken by the Quebec coalition on western grain transportation.

To speed up the restructuring process, the agency suggests expanding the definition of class 1 lines-those that can take loads of up to 220,000 pounds or whose shipments are not in excess of 500 tonnes of grain per mile, with the restriction that this would apply only to lines from where grain shipments

originate. This would exclude the CN line linking the Port of Churchill to the network. However, the agency recommends that the government assess the future of the silo in Churchill and its role with respect to grain exports. At the present time, class 1 lines extend over nearly 1,000 miles or 17 per cent of the 6,060 miles of grain branch lines, and carry 4 per cent of the total shipments.

Second, the report suggests allowing the inclusion in class 1 of lines judged to be no longer viable, where the cost of maintenance or renovation would be prohibitive. Assessments would be done by independent inspectors. Third, the report suggests immediately eliminating protection orders concerning unused lines, which may or may not be grain transportation branch lines. Fourth, it suggests setting the time limit for evaluating applications for operating alternative services at thirty days from the date of receipt of the application.

Many other recommendations could have been added to this bill which, I repeat, only deals with the most important issues.

Let us turn now to the second main objective of Bill C-66, the elimination of subsidies for Canadian wheat exports to Mexico. The government is taking this step because the Mexican government is preparing to impose countervailing duties on Canadian exports.

We know that the United States has not used its subsidy program-the Export Enhancement Program-for exports to Mexico since March 1994. Mexico is now asking Canada to follow suit. Yet American subsidies exist in other forms. Such subsidies may not be known as direct export subsidies, but they nevertheless give rise to unfair competition with Canadian exports.

I would like to know why this aspect is so strikingly absent from the bill to amend the Western Grain Transportation Act. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has provided the following explanation in a background paper: "An investigation of countervailing duties applicable to Canadian and American wheat exports has changed wheat exports to Mexico. The United States has eliminated sums paid under the Export Enhancement Program for wheat exported to the United States, and Canada has proposed to refrain from applying subsidized rates in accordance with the Western Grain Transportation Act for wheat exported to Mexico.

Eliminating the subsidies applicable for wheat exported to Mexico will help achieve compliance with the maximum volumes stipulated in the GATT provision on subsidies and exports, for the category of wheat and wheat flour. This will allow us, the department asserts, to meet the goals of the North American Free Trade Agreement in respect of the gradual elimination of export subsidies by member countries. By changing its exports to Mexico, Canada will ensure continued access to this important market".

I would die laughing if I were American and, indeed, Americans often die laughing at our expense. In 1994, the United States imposed a ceiling on Canadian wheat exports. This measure was intended to control Canadian exports which had reached record highs. The Bloc Quebecois denounced this measure, given that Canada was not guilty of anything in the matter of the wheat, since it had dropped the export subsidy for grain destined for the United States. The Canadian government agreed to the ceiling set by the United States, deeming it an acceptable compromise and less expensive for grain producers than the American countervailing duties.

Since then, a study group has been set up to look at the question and to evaluate domestic subsidies in Canada and the United States. The results of the study will, I hope, mean a return to fairer trading rules. However, we do not believe that Canada is equal to the task in these bilateral negotiations with the United States on agricultural trade. Canada bows and scrapes, even when it has an airtight case. As we can see, this defeatist attitude is now having disastrous results for our trade with Mexico.

We are concerned about western grain producers who now will have to compete directly with American wheat exports to Mexico, knowing full well that they are receiving assistance from within. The Canadian government should have included this point in its discussions with Mexico. No, instead, Canada keeps quiet, says nothing and drops its export subsidy without hesitation.

Furthermore, I read with my own eyes that the bill would allow the Canadian government to reinstate, if necessary, the subsidy on exports to Mexico. Public servants specified that it would be possible to do that if, for example, the United States decided to reinstate its export enhancement subsidies on shipments to Mexico. This logic is surprising: Can we be sure that Mexico will resort to "fair" countervailing duties, both against Canada and against the United States? Have there been negotiations on this issue?

I invite the government to table as quickly as possible its more substantial bill, since one does exist-correct me if I am wrong. I find it hard to believe that the government hatched Bill C-66, which has a very limited scope, whereas a draft bill on a major reform of the WGTA has been around for a year.

It is true that the government, which is getting a lot of pressure from the west, the east and various interest groups affected by the WGTA, is in a difficult political situation, but is that a reason for tabling a bill that falls far short of remedying the situation? Is that a reason for giving in to the United States

and Mexico? That, nevertheless, will be the outcome of Bill C-66.

[Agriculture, February 13th, 1995]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and all members of this House. I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion M-314 put forward by the Reform Party. Allow me to read the motion in question:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should immediately pursue negotiations with the provinces and agri-food industry in order to re-assign jurisdictional responsibilities in agriculture and eliminate overlap and duplication.

There is no need to reiterate my party's position regarding overlap. It goes without saying that the Bloc Quebecois has been fighting against all these unnecessary and, above all, extremely costly cases of overlap since its arrival in this House. That is why the motion put forward by my Reform colleague is quite acceptable and even desirable.

Yet, common sense seems in short supply in this government. We find ourselves repeating over and over again why it is essential to eliminate overlap between Ottawa and the prov-

inces. The Minister of Finance should listen to us instead of going after the most disadvantaged and the middle class when he tables the budget in a few days. It is never too late to make amends.

In agriculture as in all other sectors, the federal government's presence in areas of shared jurisdiction creates unnecessary and costly overlap, as I was saying a moment ago, not only in terms of administrative costs but also in terms of duplication of policies, which often compete with or contradict each other. This, in turn, reduces the effectiveness of government measures. Measures adopted by two different levels of government regularly cancel each other out. Each level wants its priorities and objectives to prevail, and the tugging back and forth is endless as neither will let go.

But Quebec has been asking for years for control, not only over agriculture, but also over regional development, natural resources, manpower training and so on. There are also problems in areas other than areas of shared jurisdiction. The federal government does not respect the provinces' exclusive jurisdiction over areas of provincial jurisdiction, and never did.

The Reform member's motion is relevant, but does he realize that the federal government has always been, and continues to be, centralizing? Quebec knows that this government turns a deaf ear to even the most sensible suggestions when it comes to decentralizing powers to the provinces. Let us be wary of transfers of administrative responsibilities in lieu of jurisdictions. With the former, the provinces are at the mercy of the federal government which can, at any given time, cut budget allocations. In the present situation, the Liberals are likely to suggest such transfers, when we know full well that it is just passing the buck to the provinces.

The provinces are asking for responsibility, of course, but also for the income tax points that come with it. We know that the so-called flexibility of the federal government is nothing but a sham, an empty word that the big guns of federalism use to deceive us once again.

Only by becoming sovereign can Quebec exercise any real control over its socio-economic development. So, when I say that we support the motion, this means that we realize that the federal government never paid any attention to this.

The federal-provincial division of powers issue will become irrelevant once Quebec has achieved sovereignty. However, you will agree that, for some provinces, including Quebec, a federal Department of Agriculture and Agri-food is more of a burden than a benefit.

In Quebec we have two departments of agriculture, each with its own farm income stabilization scheme; we have federal and provincial involvement in marketing board systems; and we have two levels of government involved in agricultural research and farm credit. The result? The kind of overlap that causes constant fiction between both levels of government, with federal decisions being made at the expense of Quebec, and that generates major costs in the agriculture and agri-food sector, a sector that has to live with two regulatory levels and meet the requirements of programs that do not reflect the same policies.

To support this motion means putting an end to the friction caused by unclear jurisdictional divisions. For years, Quebec has received from Ottawa only half or as little as one third of federal taxes earmarked for the agricultural sector.

The several hundred million dollars foregone annually could be used to create jobs in an industry that is responsible for 11 per cent of total employment in Quebec. In 1993, Quebec received $372 million of the $3 billion budget of the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, a meagre 12.4 per cent, and this was better than usual.

Between 1986-87 and 1991-92, Quebec's share was 8.3 per cent, according to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Interestingly, Quebec's revenues in the agricultural sector represented 16 per cent of total Canadian revenues in this sector. Furthermore, in terms of added value, the Quebec food industry represents 25.4 per cent of the Canadian food industry, according to Statistics Canada.

The following is an example of the utter confusion caused by the involvement of two levels of government in health standards and meat inspection. At the present time, at least three inspectors visit farms to get exactly the same information, which is then transferred to Health Canada, to Agriculture and Agri-Food and to the Quebec Department of Agriculture, respectively.

The federal government spends $275 million each year on inspection and regulatory procedures, in an area that is covered almost identically by the Government of Quebec. For Quebec, this outright duplication means an annual loss of $64 million.

If the provinces were given jurisdiction over agriculture and agri-food, Quebec could stop subsidizing the central government, whose policies are based on the needs of the west, as we have repeatedly pointed out in the House. These policies are based on the needs of a grain export industry, whereas Quebec's supply management policies are designed to support the livestock industry. One advantage for us would be not having to invest so much energy in Ottawa any more to establish the legitimacy of our own programs.

At this point, the short sighted view of the federal government would indicate dark days ahead for agriculture. We remain at the mercy of Ottawa's unilateral cuts. The upcoming budget provides for major cuts to the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food, cuts that are likely to affect service to the industry and to the public.

These cuts are the result of Ottawa's wastage of public funds. This is what happens when unnecessary overlap continues unchecked.

It would be appropriate to recall here the position taken by the Union des producteurs agricoles du Québec in its brief to the Bélanger-Campeau commission in December 1990. It stated that, in the area of agriculture, Quebec wanted to take its legitimate share of federal funds and invest it according to its own priorities, policies and programs. It wanted to continue to develop agriculture in the province with the federal funds granted to it on the basis of the four forms of support to agriculture: supply management, income stabilization, farm credit and crop insurance. Each time, energy was wasted in confrontations, for the most part to no avail, trying to assert its point of view on this matter.

Obviously, Quebec is entirely prepared to assume its responsibilities in respect of agriculture and agri-food. We have all the tools to develop our industry and a strategy to do so. I myself have described this strategy to the House on more than one occasion. I would like to review its main points.

The stakeholders and parties in Quebec interested in regional development and agri-food matters met in February 1991 in Montreal and decreed that the community should take charge of its own future. The following objectives were identified during these rural estates general: respecting and promoting regional and local values; dialogue with regional and local partners; protecting and renewing resources; redistributing political power from the top down.

Thus round tables on the food sector were established in Quebec. During the conference in Trois-Rivières in June 1992, they came to an agreement on the main areas to be emphasized to ensure development of the agri-food sector in Quebec. These included, in particular, recognizing, developing and supporting human resources training; ensuring continuity, development and growth in agri-food companies; readjusting current income security programs on the basis of production costs; developing income security programs consistent with the rules of international trade; promoting funding for agricultural businesses and their transfer without incurring massive debt; providing for support for non-viable businesses likely to be reorganized within the sector and providing assistance to persons getting out of the agricultural business. Stakeholders in the Quebec agricultural community have taken measures to control decision-making in their area.

All the while, the federal government is gearing its agricultural policy to the needs of farmers out west. The agricultural bills that have been introduced in the House over the past year all dealt with the grain sector. In addition to Bill C-61, there has been Bill C-49 to amend the Department of Agriculture, Bill C-50 on the Canadian Wheat Board, Bill C-51 on Canadian grain and, now, Bill C-66 on western grain transportation.

Yes, Quebec is ready to assume full responsibility for its agricultural and agri-food sectors, but we need adequate financing, which we can only get by recovering our share of taxes earmarked for those sectors.

If by some miracle the federal government should adopt the motion and agree to transfer jurisdiction over agriculture and agri-food to provinces that want it, the provinces will have to be involved throughout the process. Therefore, the governments which will assume responsibility for the jurisdiction will have to be included in discussions on the transfer of responsibilities and in negotiations with the industry.

We must be on guard: the federal government cannot enter unilaterally into negotiations with the industry to make major changes in responsibilities between it and the industry while it is in the process of transferring jurisdiction to the provinces.

And the government should make no mistake: we are not talking about a transfer of responsibilities, but of jurisdiction. We will not be dumped on. In the case of agriculture, the power will be strictly provincial when administered by the provinces.

In Quebec, we know from our experience with fisheries that a transfer of responsibility can be unilaterally cancelled by Ottawa. We must avoid, at all costs, repeating this catastrophe in the agricultural sector.

Thus, we say yes to the motion. We would also like to say that we, the Bloc Quebecois, are able to say yes to any motion that is good, whether proposed by a Reformer, a Liberal or a Conservative. Yes to a transfer of jurisdiction, but no to transferring responsibility without transferring tax points.

[Agriculture, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would ask for your consent and that of the House. I have a 20-minute speech and I will be the only speaker during the three-hour debate today. Therefore, I ask for unanimous consent to deliver my speech in full.

[Department Of Industry Act, December 7th, 1994]

Thank you.

I am very pleased to give an answer to the hon. member. First, I want to thank her for confirming that my figures are accurate. I might add that she could not have said that they were not. In any case, I am very pleased because it confirms that we are telling the truth.

I could mention other examples, other incidents which have occurred in the context of the federal government versus Quebec or the United States. I agree that we have a free trade arrangement, but still. Earlier, I referred to the Federal Office of Regional Development. Where did it invest in industry? It invested many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Some people asked me not to raise this issue. The office invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in a given Quebec industry, yet the federal government simply turns around and, for a comparable or similar price, buys in the United States.

I can tell you about this issue because I was involved in it. I said: Wait a minute; did this industry have an opportunity to bid? We are talking about a Quebec industry from my region, in which the federal government invested-listen to this-hundreds of thousands of dollars for research and development. If the federal government does not buy in Quebec but buys elsewhere in Canada, I say fine.

These are examples of duplication and mismanagement. I am telling you about what I know to be true, about what is really going on. The figures I mentioned are the actual figures.

I want to say something further about the industrial situation. In my riding, we have what is called BDCs, business development centres, which can also be found, I am sure, in other ridings as well. With $5,000, I can create a job. And if some people can deny this, I will listen to what they have to say, but I know that with $5,000, I can create one job. At the federal level, the infrastructure program needs $100,000 to create just one job. Did you hear that? With $5,000, I can create one job, but the federal government needs $100,000 in its infrastructure program to create just one job. This is quite a difference. In fact, it is a $95,000 difference to create just one job, since we go from $5,000 to $100,000. I thought I would just mention these figures.

Madam Speaker, you are indicating that I have two minutes left. I will take what time I have left to stress how important Bill C-46 is.

I do not want people to think that I criticize all the time. That is not my role. My role is to make suggestions, to ensure that there is some openness, but you, on the other side of the House, also need to show that you are open-minded. That is how we will be able to harmonize some of the various programs and initiatives.

The hon. member said earlier that I was very good at quoting statistics and that she could not deny these figures. I know she cannot deny them, I am not crazy!

Do you understand what we want? The hon. member recognized earlier that for the last nine years the situation has not been fair. I said so myself earlier. I always come back to the same example: it is important for a father with three or four children to treat them all equally. By treating his children fairly and equally, he avoids creating any type of quarrel.

I used some figures earlier. I understand what Quebec wants. I have seen other industries in Western Canada receiving millions of dollars in subsidies to gain access to Quebec's market, while Quebec's own industries were not receiving one penny for exactly the same products.

Madam Speaker, on the issue of fairness, let me give some advice: Render unto God what is God's and unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and everybody will be happy.

[Department Of Industry Act, December 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, how much time do I have left to answer? I would like to know before answering-

[Department Of Industry Act, December 7th, 1994]

Ask the question.

[Department Of Industry Act, December 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, as the assistant to the Official Opposition critic on regional development, I am pleased to address Bill C-46.

Back on September 26, I had the opportunity to express my strong disagreement with this piece of legislation, since it does not recognize Quebec's jurisdiction over its regional development. That bill was unacceptable in its original form. Yet, this House rejected the amendments to clauses 8, 9 and 10 proposed by the opposition critic on regional development. These amendments read as follows:

That Bill C-46 be amended by replacing, in Clause 8, line 23, in Clause 9, line 22, and in Clause 10, line 36, with the following:

with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of Quebec where such powers, duties and functions relate to regional development in Quebec-

We simply asked that Quebec have control over its regional development. Who, if not Quebec, is in the best position to develop policies in that sector? Certainly not the federal Minister of Industry, although he could, through this legislation, have the authority to set up such policies and exercise control over Quebec's regional development.

The previous government wanted to streamline federal bureaucracy with this bill. The current government admits to looking for ways to eliminate duplication and overlap. Is it just paying lip service to the idea? It looks like it, since Bill C-46 would allow the federal government to intervene at will in Quebec.

This government is ignoring, or pretending to ignore, the efficient regional development programs which have been in place for a long time in Quebec. Incidentally, the new Quebec government has developed a dynamic regional development policy which will be implemented by the stakeholders and which takes into account the fact that trade liberalization eliminates trade barriers and exposes regional economies to stiff competition.

The Quebec government devised a new sharing of responsibility between itself and the regions, including the Quebec union of municipalities, as well as the Quebec union of regional county municipalities and local municipalities. As we have already explained to this House, RCMs will become decision-making centres for Quebec's socio-economic development. These RCMs will be designated as independent and multi-purpose political authorities.

Municipal councils will have to rely more on participation. Under the authority of the RCM's board, sectoral commissions will be delegated various powers, depending on the sector concerned. Regional delegates were appointed to provide direct liaison between the regions and the Premier.

The Quebec government also developed a sectoral development policy which puts the emphasis on the agri-food, fisheries, forestry, energy, recreation and tourism sectors. But what about the federal government? Has it demonstrated an ability to develop programs which take into account already existing provincial and regional policies? The answer is no, Madam Speaker.

No, because the federal government has never been able to reach a consensus where regional development is concerned. No, because the priorities of the Liberal government differ from those of the provinces and the regions. Let us decentralize the funding and the decision-making authority! Then, the regions would be able to develop according to their own priorities.

With this bill, the federal government is trying to control the economic development of Quebec. The government party is digging in its heels and the results are duplication and overlap.

People do not seem to understand the situation; either we have not been able to explain it to members opposite well enough or they are not listening. We all remember the three little monkeys: see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. The government is following the advice of the first two monkeys too closely; it should pay more attention to the third one. Several commissions have clearly stated in their reports that the federal government is impeding our regional development.

In its report, the interdepartmental working group on regional development, set up by the Quebec government in 1991, when the Liberals were in office, I might add, examined the issue of the proliferation of regional development initiatives.

The working group came to a very clear conclusion: confusion, duplication and overlap.

Confusion in terms of regional divisions: the federally defined regions do not match Quebec's administrative regions. Frequent confusion concerning regional officers, since there are too many government officers.

Duplication of structures: regional advisory bodies, economic development organizations, creation of program management committees to reconcile all the various types of initiatives.

Duplication that leads to operating costs that are high compared to the amount of money actually spent on development.

The Bélanger-Campeau Commission, also established by Quebec's former Liberal government, draws conclusions that are equally clear. If Quebec assumed responsibility for existing federal programs without any reduction in services, there would be annual savings of $289 million in spending related to the collection of customs duties and taxes, $250 million in manpower and $233 million in transportation and communication costs.

A study indicates that 67 per cent of federal programs overlap provincial programs to some extent. This study, conducted by Germain Julien and Marcel Proulx, tells us that overlap accounts for 65 per cent of government spending, excluding the public debt and unemployment insurance. This represents $67.5 billion and 45 per cent of personnel or 114,000 full-time employees for 1991 and 1992.

What is the origin of this overlap? Seventy-six per cent is attributable to the authority to legislate in shared areas and 24 per cent to federal spending power in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

We know all too well the consequences of these overlapping programs: increased cost of government action when it would be more economical to give one government exclusive responsibility for services provided at both levels.

Redundancy in programs: irrational use of personnel and equipment by both levels for similar activities.

The exorbitant cost of co-ordination: officials meet hundreds of times a year to check whether they are offering the same services, to harmonize program objectives and to ensure they are compatible.

Reduced effectiveness of government measures: how many times have we seen measures that are put in place by two levels of government cancel each other out for lack of consensus on objectives and priorities. Of course, no one wants to make concessions.

An additional burden on the target population, which has trouble finding its way through the labyrinth of government programs, especially when there is duplication.

Turf wars that make governments act irresponsibly. And who pays for all this? The taxpayer.

In spite of these factors, the Liberal government insists on passing legislation like Bill C-46 which dismisses out of hand Quebec's policies on regional development. The government says that it wants to eliminate duplication and overlap and then introduces a bill in which it maintains its hold on regional development.

Unlike Quebec, the federal government does not consult but implements policies from coast to coast. Consider the changes made within the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec. The new focus targets four areas: exports, new technologies, entrepreneurship and catalyst projects. According to the government, that is what the directors of SMEs want.

However, every region has to identify its own priorities. In our region for instance, these include tourism and culture. It will not be easy to get approval for these projects, since proposals for a cultural centre in my own riding have just been turned down. The federal government refuses to consider the specific needs of each region. We have developed instruments, including the CRD, the Conseil régional de développement, to promote regional priorities. The government could have consulted to harmonize its actions.

All this duplication and overlap is very costly. Why should we believe today that the Department of Industry will be able to reduce waste? When reading Bill C-46, I see, like everybody else in this chamber, that it maintains the status quo-an expression dear to the Prime Minister-between the mandates and the grouped departments.

Quebec's demand for exclusive jurisdiction over regional development is nothing new. Since the Quiet Revolution, it has been constantly restated. These are not whims, contrary to what the Prime Minister said. Since then, Quebec has had governments of every political stripe, but its demands have remained the same. Federal interference is still ubiquitous, and the regions are no better off as a result.

Let us recall why the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion disappeared in 1987: the regions were not involved in the funding request development and review process. The money that could have been used to fund excellent projects was instead given to useless ones. Industrial development was favoured at the expense of regional development. Since then, we have been living the same nightmare. If the federal government believes its general agreements have improved the situation, it is quite wrong. There may be no complaint from western Canada and the Maritimes which received $630 million and $1.2 billion respectively, whereas Quebec received $165 million. Is this fair? Regions can and must do more than simply supply domestic and foreign markets with raw materials.

It is the processing industries which create jobs and develop local resources. If we do not look after them, regions become more and more dependent. The federal government refuses to acknowledge that its approach to regional development are wrong. Yet, studies clearly show that the economic base is eroding, the social fabric is unravelling, the depopulation of rural areas is continuing, and young people are moving out of the regions.

All Ottawa is doing is regionalizing its operations by setting up regional structures. It might increase visibility, but it certainly does not improve efficiency. As we already said, federal interference causes duplication and inconsistency. The result is an administrative mess which slows down economic development in the regions and makes them the big losers.

The federal government's scope is so broad that it cannot correctly target the particular needs of a given region. As far as we can tell, FORD-Q is not free to make its action fit any total vision of local development.

It would be so simple for the government to promise to accept the priorities set by the regions, in order to maximize the impact of measures initiated by regional leaders in Quebec. Going along with the priorities set by the regions is one thing, having a third party role in the financing of regional development projects is another.

On this point, the rise in administrative costs and the squabbles with the provinces should convince the federal government that duplication between the two levels of government is damaging. This is why we insist so much on the need to decentralize budgets and decision-making. The future of the regions lies in the decentralization of power towards regional decision centres.

The government is not proposing anything to redress the imbalance in funding. While federal regional development funding has increased 50 per cent in Quebec since 1983, it jumped 300 per cent in the West and 250 per cent in the Maritimes.

Based on figures from the Federal Office for Regional Development-Quebec itself, the federal input in regional development is inequitable. Quebec's per capita share is $230, compared to $240 in Western Canada and $920 in Atlantic Canada.

Master agreements were mentioned earlier. The per capita results are catastrophic for Quebec in that regard as well, with $64 spent in Quebec in 1987, compared to $431 in Atlantic Canada and $259 in Western Canada.

The government could restore equity by cutting expenditures, as the Auditor General said, by eliminating tax breaks such as family trusts and the waste from duplication and overlap caused mostly by infringing on provincial jurisdictions, as mentioned earlier.

What would these billions of dollars be used for, Madam Speaker? This money could be used to restore equity in the amounts received by Quebec from the federal government for regional development. Quebec does not want its regional development to be built only on an industrial vision dictated by the Department of Industry in Ottawa.

Quebec has had its fill of inconsistent federal initiatives and policies. Why is it that the Quebec government has realized that the regional stakeholders are the only ones who grasp the real needs of their respective regions and the people across the way have not?

This bill is far from putting to rest the concerns that regional development organizations and all stakeholders have. The government must change course. We want Quebec to have exclusive control over the development of its regions.

We want to repatriate, in the form of tax points, the budget allocated to local development. We want decision-making and spending powers to be decentralized to the regions. This is a must for the economic development of Quebec. It is also a major component of our people's plans for sovereignty.

[Canada Grain Act, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address Bill C-51, An Act to amend the Canada Grain Act and respecting certain regulations made pursuant to that Act. As you know, the Canadian Grain Commission has the responsibility to guarantee to purchasers of Canadian grain the quality and the quantity that they order, and to ensure the reliability and the wholesomeness of products intended for domestic and foreign markets.

The government wanted to give more operational flexibility to the commission by amending the act. The amendments include changes to the current provisions on licensing and security. The Official Opposition tabled a motion regarding the appointment of the commissioners to the Canadian Grain Commission. Let me tell you that the public has had enough of partisan appointments and is tired of seeing heads roll as soon as a new government takes office.

The amendment to clause 2, which will be discussed more thoroughly later on by a colleague of mine, must be adopted for reasons of transparency. Motions Nos. 2, 4 and 5, tabled by the NDP, deserve some consideration.

The hon. member for Mackenzie proposes that the deadline set in clause 12 be changed. We cannot accept that amendment.

The Canadian Grain Commission requires producers to do what is necessary to get paid for their grain, within 90 days of delivery to an elevator operator or a grain dealer. After this 90-day period, a producer who did not get paid has 30 days to notify the commission. The 90-day period is fixed by regulation.

In its amendment, the NDP proposes to set that period at 180 days in the act. Thus, it would no longer be possible to change that period by regulation. The Canadian Grain Commission would see its flexibility to ensure payment for the grain within a reasonable period of time and especially to avoid bankruptcy be reduced.

Do we need to remind the NDP that this time limit was set up following a Federal Court ruling in 1990, which held the Canadian Grain Commission responsible for the bankruptcy of two of its licensees? The security given by these two licensees was not enough and the taxpayers had to make up the difference, which came to $3.8 million in this case.

Let us just say that it would be better to avoid such incidents from now on. The 90-day time limit provided for in the regulations seems fair. This is why we urge members to vote against this motion.

Motion No. 4 to amend Clause 19 is inappropriate, since we are not talking about the same type of elevator receipts. In the case of terminal elevators or transfer elevators, a receipt can be resold. The last holder has the priority to receive the grain. However, in the case of a primary elevator, the purchase or the sale is handled directly by the producer and the terminal operator.

The elevator receipts are redeemable immediately. Even the Canadian Grain Commission does not see the need to add primary elevators to Clause 19 of this bill, because we are not talking about the same type of transactions.

In Motion No. 5 concerning Clause 22, the NDP proposes that the commonly used name of some types of grain be stated on the grain receipt, or the elevator receipt, if no Canada grade name is applicable to the grain. After checking with the Canadian Grain Commission, it seems that almost every grain has a Canada grade name, even though it is not always well known.

The amendment as proposed by the NDP could cause even more serious administrative problems than if everybody used the grade names. Greater responsibility is imposed on grain producers and operators to state the grade name, grade and dockage of the grain in order to help assess the value of the grain.

Anyway, the Commission can exempt an elevator operation from using the grade. If the Commission releases the lesser known grades of some grains, people should be able to manage. In this case, we do not think the bill needs to be amended in this way.

[World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act, November 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member about grain transportation. Today, to be eligible for the subsidy, western grain is first shipped to Thunder Bay, and we are talking about grain that is going to be shipped to Europe. Then, they ship it back to Vancouver, and from Vancouver the grain is sent by ship through the Panama

Canal to Europe. I would like to know whether the hon. member has some alternatives, when we are talking about saving money. I wish he could suggest some ways to save money in this particular instance.