CONTENTS
Wednesday, June 5, 1996
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 3483
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3485
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3485
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3485
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3485
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3485
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 3487
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3487
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 3487
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 3487
Mr. Harper (Churchill) 3489
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 3491
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 3491
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 3492
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3492
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 3492
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 3499
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 3506
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 3511
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 3513
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 3518
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 3518
3481
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, June 5, 1996
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
The Speaker: As is our practice on Wednesdays, we will now
sing O Canada, which will be led by the member for Halifax West.
[Editor's Note: Whereupon members sang the national anthem.]
_____________________________________________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as stated
by the Minister of Labour on Monday, eliminating accidents in the
workplace is both a social and economic necessity. Canadian
Occupational Health and Safety Week lets us focus on the
tremendous toll that these accidents take on human life and
productivity.
This year's theme of ``Training-Target Zero Accidents'' shows
that training is a key factor to eliminating accidents. How do we
target zero accidents? In response I say by integrating occupational
safety and health in our day to day activities, for example by
choosing the right equipment, learning to lift things properly and
taking the time to speak to our workers and co-workers about safer
practices.
We can reduce the grim statistics through teamwork. In that
spirit I would like to congratulate the Canadian Society of Safety
Engineering for sponsoring this annual event. I encourage
Canadians to participate in events this week and to work together to
make our workplaces safer and more productive.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, June is
the month when the hearts of many young adults become twitter
patted and marriage is soon to follow. In fact many young couples
have made that move just prior to June, including my son and his
new wife.
On May 25 I attended another wedding of a young couple, Krista
and Jerry, and was asked to give a toast to the bride. As a member
of Parliament, I took the opportunity on behalf of the Prime
Minister and the House of Commons to wish Krista and Jerry the
very best in their marriage.
Realizing that during the rest of 1996 there will be thousands of
Canadians joining in holy matrimony, I thought it would be nice if
members would take a second for all of us to collectively wish the
very best to all newlyweds of 1996. May you live a long prosperous
life and may your marriage be fruitful. God bless each and every
family on behalf of all members of Parliament.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, National Transportation Week is on until June 8. It gives
me great pleasure to draw attention to this event, especially since
federal transportation policies provide us every day with more
reasons to wish for Quebec sovereignty.
If a single government had jurisdiction over transportation, we
would never have faced the uncontrolled development of road
transport without first making better use of existing rail and
shipping services. Rail transport comes under federal jurisdiction
while road transport is a provincial responsibility. Because of this
artificial division of powers between the federal and provincial
governments, intermodality could not become a major tool for
government action.
Quebec sovereignty will solve part of the problem in this area. In
order to modernize the whole transportation system, society in both
Canada and Quebec must equip itself with modern tools such as
sovereignty-partnership and set aside an antiquated and ineffective
Constitution.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, a
couple of weeks ago residents of Whitehorse, Yukon were
surprised when they awoke to find that the greenbelts behind their
3482
homes were being staked for mining. This came as some
considerable surprise and has raised a large amount of public
concern.
It is quite legal under the Yukon Quartz Mining Act to do this
staking. However, it was not clearly the intention of the city of
Whitehorse when it formulated these greenbelts in residential areas
that the greenbelts would be open to staking.
The city of Whitehorse has appealed to the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development for action. The territorial
government has supported that appeal, as have I.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development can
halt the claims. He can stop them today. I therefore urge the
minister to immediately grant a temporary prohibition order on
claims staking to allow for the development of detailed plans for
land use in the city of Whitehorse.
I say to the minister, do not put off to tomorrow what can be done
today.
* * *
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, across
Canada this summer, students are looking for summer jobs. In
Halifax West we are responding.
The summer career placement program is off to a promising
start. Over 100 sponsors have joined the federal government to
create over 200 summer jobs for our youth. These are not just
McJobs. They include lifeguards, veterinary assistants and
community development officers, all worthwhile activities.
I am confident the summer career placement program will be a
resounding success.
From Terrance Bay to Timberlea, from Boutiliers Point to
Bedford, students are working this summer in Halifax West.
* * *
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the organizers of a terrific
event that took place in my riding last weekend. It was called the
Muskoka Air Fair and it attracted literally thousands of visitors and
aviation enthusiasts to the riding.
(1405 )
We were fortunate enough to experience a spectacular
performance by our Canadian world renowned Snowbirds air
demonstration squadron which really drew the crowds. Astronaut
Major Chris Hadfield also came to the air fair and met with scores
of visitors, particularly our young people. He is a true ambassador.
Tourism is a mainstay of the economy in my riding. My
constituents need to be creative and proactive when it comes to
attracting businesses to the area. This air show took many, many
long hours of hard work to come into being. It took insight,
foresight and determination and it had an impact.
I congratulate all the volunteers and organizers who worked so
hard to make a difference.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, during his previous visit to the United States in March
1994 as leader of the Bloc Quebecois, Lucien Bouchard chose a
particular terminology to describe with precision the nature of the
option he is defending.
He told the Globe and Mail: ``We want Quebec to leave the
Canadian federation. I am not reluctant to use the term `separation'
as it objectively describes the current situation''.
While addressing the Foreign Policy Association in New York
this week, the new PQ leader used the words ``sovereignty'' or
``sovereignist'' on four separate occasions but did not at any time
utter the term ``separatist''.
Even outside Quebec, the PQ leader continues to create
confusion as to his goal by refusing to clearly explain that the
sovereignty he is referring to cannot be achieved until Quebec first
separates from the rest of Canada.
* * *
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as we
celebrate Canadian Environment Week, it seems important to stress
the fact that the environment is a major concern and that,
unfortunately, governments are neglecting this concern more and
more for economic reasons.
Neo-liberalism is in fashion, a fashion affecting even
environmental policies. Governments are going soft. Their resolve
to take strict action against polluters is weakening. It is easier to
back away and promote voluntary and self monitoring measures by
and for polluters.
This trend poses a great threat. This threat is hanging over the
future of a planet that we are devastating at an accelerated pace
without apparently feeling any urgent need for vigorous action.
People of our generation can expect to live in an acceptable
environment, but what about our children? Will they have to live
inside bubbles, forced to protect and isolate themselves from an
3483
increasingly hostile environment. We must stop talking and start
acting.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this is National Environment Week.
This government and others continue to ignore the single
unifying cause of the destruction of our agricultural lands, water
quality and ozone that combine to make our environment
increasingly compromised. The primary cause of the
environmental degradation I speak about is our own population
growth rate, with its increasing consumption of our dwindling
resources which produces environmental degradation and
populations under stress. This is a vicious cycle that no one is
looking at because they are not prepared to deal with the politically
incorrect topic of our own reproductive growth rates.
Our own reproductive success is destroying the beautiful home
we call Earth. The response from governments on the environment
have been motherhood statements and a nibbling around the edges.
Even domestically the government has failed to act on a number of
important issues, including the Taro dump site in Hamilton, the
clean-up of 24 hazardous toxic sites in Canada, and our endangered
species.
If this inaction is indicative of the government's response to the
environment, then we are all in big trouble.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, many residents of my riding of Etobicoke-Lakeshore are
concerned about the future of the Toronto VIA Rail maintenance
centre and the jobs of its employees. Located in Etobicoke the
Toronto VIA Rail maintenance centre services equipment and
trains that run in the busy Windsor-Quebec corridor.
The streamlining of VIA Rail's passenger rail service that has
taken place over the past few years has resulted in a reduction in
staff across Canada. The employees of the Toronto VIA Rail
maintenance centre have met these challenges and continue to
provide top notch service for locomotives which carry people of all
ages to destinations across Canada.
I know that the Minister of Transport and VIA Rail are making
efforts to ensure efficiency and the continuance of safe and reliable
passenger rail service for all Canadians.
(1410 )
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as a
result of his recently announced purchase, Conrad Black now owns
daily newspapers in every province in Canada except two. This
latest acquisition of 20 additional dailies boosts his ownership of
Canadian newspapers to 58 from British Columbia to
Newfoundland. This is 40 per cent of Canada's total daily
newspaper circulation. Canadians are very concerned with such a
concentration of control.
Canada has 104 daily newspapers. Of the 104 dailies only 14
remain independently owned. The Brockville Recorder & Times in
my riding of Leeds-Grenville is one of these independently
owned newspapers.
Friday, May 24 was truly black Friday in the Canadian
newspaper business. Canadian tax legislation discourages foreign
investment or ownership of newspapers or publications in this
country. I am sure there is a rational explanation for the current
rules controlling newspaper ownership in Canada, but if the rules
continue to allow Canadian newspapers and their ownership to fall
into fewer and fewer hands-
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Natural Resources has indicated
time and again that 25 per cent of her department's research and
development budget goes to Quebec.
The time has come to set the record straight. When the minister
says that 25 per cent of the funds are spent in Quebec, she is
distorting reality by not including in Ontario's share the funds
allocated to the national capital region, when in fact a large portion
of this region is located in Ontario and 60 per cent of her
department's expenditures in research and development are made
in that region alone.
The fact of the matter is that, in 1995-96, only 14.9 per cent of
Natural Resources Canada's research and development budget, or
$7.8 million out of an overall budget of $52 million, went to
Quebec.
And the big picture is not any brighter. According to Statistics
Canada, between 1971 and 1991, only 18.6 per cent of the federal
government's research and development funding went to Quebec,
as compared to 50 per cent for Ontario.
3484
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, a few weeks ago the Prime Minister told Canadians to get
used to unemployment because of the global economy. However, a
couple of weeks later he said that more foreign trade missions were
needed to spur investment and exports. First the global economy
kills jobs, then it creates them.
After the election he spent billions, borrowed at the expense of
future generations, on infrastructure projects such as to upgrade the
Calgary Saddledome and build a road to nowhere in Nova Scotia.
He said that government created jobs, but a couple of years later he
now says that only business can create jobs. This uncertainty about
how jobs are created is frightening millions of Canadians who
cannot find work or who are afraid for their jobs.
The Prime Minister needs a copy of Reform's 5-R jobs plan. If
he takes his promise of jobs, jobs, jobs seriously, he will read it and
then replace his empty political rhetoric with a real plan for putting
Canada back to work.
* * *
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, notice was
given on Friday, May 31, 1996 to the federal Minister of Public
Works and Government Services by the contractor Strait Crossing
Incorporated that in one year, on May 31, 1997, the bridge
connecting mainland Canada with Prince Edward Island will be
officially opened.
This gigantic $800 million project which is a unique public
sector-private sector partnership is on schedule and under budget.
This in itself is unique for a project of such magnitude. Two
thousand, four hundred Canadians work on the job site and 2,000
Canadians work off the job site.
Under P.E.I.'s terms of entry into Confederation in 1873 the
Government of Canada was obliged to provide continuous and
efficient year-round transportation for people, goods and services
between P.E.I. and the mainland. This engineering marvel, a 13
kilometre bridge, will continue to fulfil that agreement. It was
made possible by an amendment to the terms of Confederation
passed by the federal government in 1993.
It is interesting to note that engineers from all over the world are
coming to P.E.I. to study the innovative technology being used to
erect the bridge. Hopefully, Canadian engineering students will
avail themselves of the opportunity as well.
I invite this House and the people of Canada to come to P.E.I.
and view this wonder of the world.
(1415)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Reform Party is having a big convention this weekend
in Vancouver. Canadians are wondering what steps the Reform
Party is taking to preserve party dignity. To assist, a reading from
the gospel according to the leader, the hon. member for Calgary
Southwest: ``If you think that it is going to be that type of meeting,
get as many sane, sober people there as possible. Overwhelm the
kook element''.
Canadians will wonder which membership list the Reform Party
has borrowed to overwhelm the kook element. To quote the Reform
gospel again: ``Why should a few extremists and eccentrics have
more influence with you than I do? Why should they have more
influence than the large number of Reformers who are neither
extreme nor eccentric?''
Where are these Reformers who are neither extreme nor
eccentric? Tune in this weekend on Canada's parliamentary
channel and see the greatest circus since P.T. Barnum.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of Manitok Thompson who is Minister of
Municipal and Community Affairs and Minister Responsible for
the Women's Directorate, Government of the Northwest
Territories.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
_____________________________________________
3484
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the consequences of the American Helms-Burton Act,
which has extra-territorial effect and is intended to strengthen the
U.S. embargo against Cuba, are extremely serious, since Canada is
Cuba's major economic partner. Yesterday, the countries of the
Organization of American States reached an unanimous decision to
present a draft resolution against this American legislation.
Given that Canada and Mexico are partners in both the OAS and
NAFTA, and given that the Prime Minister is scheduled to be
meeting with the President of Mexico in a few days, does the Prime
Minister intend to make use of the economic and political clout the
two countries wield with the U.S. and to propose to his counterpart
a joint strategy in defence of this American legislation?
3485
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as everyone here knows, we have protested on behalf of
Canada right from the beginning. Later, I went to meet with the
Caribbean heads of government and convinced them to adopt a
joint resolution. Mexico has protested against this act. We have
had occasion to discuss it with the European community, and it
is my belief that the Americans are totally isolated in this initiative
to adopt extra-territorial legislation.
We shall be keeping up the pressure on the American
government. I myself have spoken with the President, and the
matter will certainly be raised, as the hon. member has suggested,
with our Mexican partner because we most firmly believe that it is
absolutely contrary to both the letter and the spirit of NAFTA.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister. Following along in the same
vein, during the Prime Minister of France's visit to Quebec and
Canada, which is scheduled for next week, does the Prime Minister
intend to discuss the matter, in order to have it placed on the agenda
of the next G-7 summit, which will take place at Lyon at the end of
June?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe that the French government has protested, as has
the European Community in general. I believe that all the countries
have protested, or at least the community as a whole. Every time
we have the opportunity to meet with our foreign counterparts, we
raise this problem, and I am sure I shall have the opportunity to
discuss it with Mr. Juppé. He will, perhaps, be able to bring
pressure to bear on the President of France, who is the current head
of the G-7, so that the problem may be raised during his term.
(1420)
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, following along again in the same vein, since the
extra-territorial nature of the Helms-Burton Act is contrary to
international trade arrangements, can the Prime Minister tell us
whether Canada has taken any steps to take this dispute before the
World Trade Organization?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know there is talk of its being submitted to NAFTA and
the International Trade Commission, but I do not know if this will
take the form of a Canadian initiative or not. All the countries have
protested, and I am sure that the organization will be apprised of
this in one way or another.
I have personally raised the issue with the U.S. government on a
number of occasions. I think the President will be making a
statement on this matter shortly. We believe the Americans will not
be able to continue along this path. Here in Canada we are looking
at the possibility of amending some of our legislation to counteract
the effects of the American legislation.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Helms-Burton legislation is having considerable impact. This
August, a provision will come into effect that may lead to
thousands of cases of prosecution against businesses with interests
in Cuba. We are talking about nearly 6,000 legal claims including a
number involving Canadian businesses.
My question is for the Prime Minister. How does he intend
helping businesses that will be prosecuted under this legislation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as I just indicated, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the
Minister for International Trade and perhaps others are studying
possible reforms that might encourage or at least help the victims
of any suits brought against Canadians.
As I understand it, the American administration has some
leeway in applying certain parts of the law. We have made
representations to the American Secretary of State and to the
administration in general in the hopes that they would use the
flexibility available to them to chield Canadians or at least leave
them out of this matter.
Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Terrebonne, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that is
all very well, but time is of the essence. There are only two months
left.
When will the Prime Minister implement a realistic strategy to
prevent Canadian business from feeling the effects of this
legislation?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada has very little sway over the
United States Congress, which is empowered to pass legislation.
What we did, and I am happy to have been the first government
leader to raise the issue, was to stimulate interest in the
international community.
As I just said, we contacted Mexico immediately. We also had a
motion passed by all the Caribbean prime ministers, we are raising
the matter at all public forums, and I think that the Americans are
beginning to realize the legislation has little sense.
It is always rather difficult to discuss with Americans during an
electoral period, it will perhaps be a little easier in November.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture has set a lofty goal for
Canada of exporting $23 billion worth of agri-food products by the
year 2000. The number would be up from $17.3 billion in the
current year.
3486
Meanwhile the minister continues to build and reinforce
roadblocks that prevent Canadian farmers from developing new
export markets to help reach his goals.
Let me give an example. The Canadian Wheat Board has stooped
to biting and scratching in its attempt to protect its monopoly while
bungling barley sales for the last two years and going on a witch
hunt if farmers dare to challenge the board's right to be the sole
marketing authority of their grain.
Will the minister make changes now, not some future vague
time, that will allow farmers to develop new export opportunities
for their wheat and barley outside the Canadian Wheat Board if
they so choose?
(1425 )
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party continues to
make demands for pre-emptory changes in the Canadian grain
marketing system.
The hon. gentleman will know opinions in western Canada about
best methods of grain marketing are divided and those on both
sides of the question hold their opinions very sincerely and
strongly. There has been a debate on this issue in western Canada
for many months. Much of that debate has generated over time far
more heat than light.
For that reason we have attempted to bring some focus and some
logic into the discussion by establishing the western grain
marketing panel, within which all of the various points of view can
be addressed in a thorough, logical and transparent manner.
The membership of that panel, including nine prominent
Canadians, includes every range of opinion on grain marketing
from one extreme to the other. The panel is working very hard and
very well together.
We expect to receive the report from the panel by the end of this
month. Once we have that report we will all be in a position to
make logical, fair and decent decisions for the future. I think it
would be highly inappropriate to pre-empt that process now.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, that was a swing and miss. We will miss our target by
at least $2 billion or $3 billion with that type of answer.
Let us try another tact. The minister of agriculture has failed to
establish a whole farm NISA arrangement with all the
provinces-another failure. The agriculture sector is becoming
more vulnerable to the interprovincial trade barriers we have seen
in the past. Ontario veal producers are being hurt by provincial
companies in Quebec. Alberta's farm income stabilization plan has
Saskatchewan cattle feeders worried. The list is getting longer and
longer.
Will the Liberal government exercise its rightful role, a federal
role, to prevent or remove interprovincial trade barriers on
agriculture goods so the industry can flourish and actually meet the
minister's targets for export rather than scrapping internally
between the provinces?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the representations contained in
the latter part of the hon. gentlemen's question I am sure will be
music to the ears of the Minister of Industry, who is responsible for
internal trade negotiations.
I hope the hon. gentleman would use his good offices in a
constructive manner to encourage the provinces, which have the
jurisdiction in a number of the areas to which he has referred, to
co-operate constructively with the Government of Canada so we
can make progress in a reasonable timeframe toward greater
internal trade freedom.
It is an anomaly when there are more internal trade restrictions
within Canada than there are between Canada and some foreign
jurisdictions.
Specifically on the issue of our trade performance, I am happy to
report the most recent statistics indicate our agri-food exports have
now surpassed $17.4 billion worth. We are well on our way to the
$20 billion target.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the minister knows he can attribute that to higher
commodity prices and if the prices drop he will fall far below his
targets. The minister is not a farmer and with the way he sucks and
blows at the same time it is good he is not a veterinarian either.
Let us try another tact. The United States has launched a NAFTA
challenge against Canadian tariffs on supply managed goods.
Hopefully we will win this dispute, but in the long term and in the
interest of reaching his goal the roadblock must be removed in
order for dairy and poultry industries to gain access to the U.S.
market. He can be certain the-
The Speaker: The question please.
Mr. Hermanson: Will the minister recognize the Americans
will eventually gain access to our markets? For the benefit of the
industry, knowing that freer trade will be forced upon them, will
the minister have a plan to reach his export targets by allowing the
supply managed industries to access U.S. markets?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, buried in this series of questions is
an ongoing attack by the Reform Party against institutions like the
Canadian Wheat Board and against marketing systems like supply
management.
We are vigorously defending the Canadian supply management
system because we believe our position is legally correct as a
matter of trade law, because supply management over the last 25
years has served Canadians, both producers and consumers, very
well, and because we undertook to Canadian agriculture that we
3487
would defend supply management. We will not succumb to the
blandishments of the Reform Party.
* * *
(1430)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In July 1995, Quebec's advisory committee on the information
highway, composed of major stakeholders in this industry, said in
its report that language constitutes a vital stake in a knowledge
based economy. It was shown at the Cotonou Francophone Summit
that Quebec has the expertise in developing francophone contents
destined for the information highway.
Does the Prime Minister intend, at his meeting with his French
counterpart scheduled for next week, to promote the key role of
Quebec in this sector and to draw the attention of the French Prime
Minister to this expertise?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is what we did in Cotonou in our presentation before
all heads of government and heads of state of francophone
countries.
There was a demonstration in which Canadians showed that we
can use the Internet in both languages, English and French. This
demonstration was put on by Canadian technicians using Canadian
products, to my great pride. People could thus see that here in
Canada we can work in English and in French, something that other
francophone countries want to be able to do in the future.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, at the Cotonou Summit, Canadian expertise was indeed
recognized: the technique came from New Brunswick, but the
content came from Quebec.
Does the Prime Minister therefore undertake to see that, should
multimedia development agreements be signed with France,
Quebec's expertise with respect to content will be recognized and
given a significant role to play?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the member has just taken the words right out of my
mouth. It was New Brunswick and Quebec together who succeeded
in showing the Francophonie how to go about it.
In this sector, there is expertise in Quebec, and there is also
expertise in New Brunswick and in Ontario; that is what Canada is
all about. We have francophones in Canada who have to work in
both languages and who can modify any American program in the
field for use in French.
It was with great pride that I was able to demonstrate this to
member countries of the Francophonie, all of whom have English
speaking neighbours, such as in Africa, and who wanted to benefit
from the expertise of Quebec, of New Brunswick and of Ontario.
We will continue this promotion and show that Canada is a country
that can run well.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
recently the Minister of Natural Resources was before the standing
committee where she explained that one of the reasons we do not
have a completed internal trade agreement on the energy side is
that Quebec refuses to allow Labrador to wield power through its
territories.
Now we hear the companies looking to process Labrador ore
may be forced to buy power from Quebec Hydro rather than their
own Labrador power companies because of the 1961 Churchill
Falls agreement.
What can the minister assure Labrador power and Labradorians
that Labrador will be allowed to process and provide power for its
own Labrador ore bodies?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have explained to the hon. member on a number
of occasions, the issue is one about which there is ongoing
interprovincial discussion. This is not an issue on which the federal
government can dictate an outcome.
As a government we choose to act in the spirit of co-operation
and we continue to facilitate discussions between the provinces in
relation to the energy chapter of the internal trade agreement, in
particular as that chapter relates to electricity markets and the
restructuring of those markets in Canada.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
answer to my questions before the standing committee last week,
the minister promised she would ask the Prime Minister if we could
place this issue on the agenda of the first ministers conference
coming up in June to see if we could settle this internal trade
agreement, this energy sector agreement, once and for all.
Could she update the House on her progress and whether the
Prime Minister has put that on the agenda? I would be interested to
know.
(1435 )
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have discussed the matter with my colleague, the
Minister of Industry. The internal trade agreement is his
responsibility.
3488
I have worked very closely with my hon. colleague. I am sure
we will be discussing the matter with the Prime Minister in terms
of what aspects of the internal trade agreement will be on the first
ministers agenda later this month.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The credibility of the Chief of Staff, General Jean Boyle, is once
again questioned by the Somalia inquiry commission.
Indeed, the general claimed he was informed of the falsification
of documents last September 22, when in fact he may have known
about it as early as September 15. The general is also said to have
signed 68 falsified documents. Worse still, he is even said to have
met with the department's former director of public relations to
discuss an eventual testimony before the inquiry commission.
How does the minister explain that General Boyle signed the
same falsified documents as Colonel Haswell but got away with it,
while Colonel Haswell is facing several charges? Is there a double
standard in military justice?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member knows from previous answers I have given in the House
that it is inappropriate for me to comment on evidence given at the
inquiry.
I ask the hon. member to wait and let everybody have their say
before drawing any conclusions.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
April 25, following the tabling of documents arousing new
suspicions on the involvement of the Chief of Staff in the cover-up,
the military police had to reopen its investigation.
My question to the minister is as follows: What is happening
with this investigation, and when does the minister intend to make
it public?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
comment on ongoing investigations by the military police. I ask the
hon. member to wait until the inquiry deals with these matters and
then he will get all the answers.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Many Canadians with disabilities are frightened and concerned
that they have fallen through the cracks of government policy.
Previously programs in support of disability employment measures
were primarily the responsibility of and were co-ordinated by
various federal government initiatives.
Under the new employment insurance regime persons with
disabilities must have a previous attachment to the labour force to
be eligible for training.
What is the government's responsibility to unemployed
Canadians with disabilities and what does the minister envision his
personal role to be?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know I
am appearing before the committee this afternoon which is charged
by the House of Commons with matters relating to Canadians with
disabilities.
With respect to the question of funding, as the hon. member
knows, the Government of Canada in the speech from the throne
and on a number of occasions has indicated its intention to
withdraw from the area of manpower training.
One thing we will have to determine in our conversations with
representatives of the disabled community is how we can achieve
the objective demanded of us by the provinces to withdraw from
labour training but still ensure persons with disabilities are taken
care of, as well they should be and as I believe they should be.
When the hon. member asks me how I envision the
responsibility of the Minister of Human Resources Development, it
is our responsibility as a national government to make sure those
individuals who need assistance, help and support receive it. In our
negotiations with the provinces we will ensure that.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, persons with disabilities and groups representing persons
with disabilities feel orphaned and vulnerable and have felt that
way for some time. They feel that perhaps the minister's
department does not have the same commitment to persons with
disabilities that he obviously has.
(1440 )
If Canada is not to become a patchwork of standards as it relates
to persons with disabilities, federal leadership is absolutely
necessary. That leadership has been exemplary for the last 15 or 20
years. We have been world leaders.
3489
As the minister stated, the Canada Health and Social Transfer
Act devolves responsibility to the provinces. Will the minister
assure the House that he will use his office to ensure that disability
related concerns are placed on the agenda at the forthcoming first
ministers' conference?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think we have to be very
careful when we speak. Whether they are Canadians with
disabilities or not, one has to recognize that Canada, as a
federation, is very much a patchwork.
Provinces deliver the educational programs made available to
Canadians whether they have disabilities or not. The same thing
applies to health programs, rehabilitation programs and vocational
training programs.
I understand and I hope that we will be able to find a mechanism,
in co-operation and consultation with the disabled community, that
will allow us to maintain that national visibility, and make sure that
these problems are addressed.
The community affected by the changes taking place will also
have to make its voice heard by the provincial premiers and their
governments. It should not keep coming to the Government of
Canada looking for leadership when the services are being
delivered to a very large degree by the provinces, as has been the
case in the past. We have to make sure we are all working
co-operatively to try to find appropriate solutions for the disabled
community, and for that matter for all Canadians who have needs in
areas where services are delivered by the provinces.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State responsible for the Federal
Office of Regional Development in Quebec.
On several occasions, the City of Saint-Hubert made
representations to the minister, including one for the obtention of a
fund to promote and maintain employment in the region. We now
know that the closing of the land force command headquarters and
of the other facilities in Saint-Hubert will result in the loss of 1,400
jobs.
Can the minister tell the House if his government intends to
provide a fund to promote and maintain employment in the region,
to make up for the negative impact of this closure?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I did have
an opportunity to meet the mayor and some officials of
Saint-Hubert, regarding the closure of the base. A number of
facilities have been closed across Canada, and it is essentially up to
the Department of National Defence to ensure that everything is
done in a normal and appropriate fashion for the communities
concerned.
During my last meeting with the mayor of Saint-Hubert, I told
him we would set up a local investment fund of about $1 million.
This investment fund, to be used exclusively to restructure local
economic interests, seemed acceptable. Other matters were also
raised by the mayor of Saint-Hubert, including payments in lieu of
taxes and the fixed assets involve. All these issues are being settled
the way they are elsewhere in Canada, with a corporation taking
charge of the infrastructures.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, $1
million is almost a joke. Why is the minister saying he is giving $1
million, considering the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency did
not hesitate to grant a $7.5 million fund to make up for the closing
of the Cornwallis base, in Nova Scotia?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, closures
were made all over the country. Each case was reviewed on its own
merits. We took into consideration the location of each base, as
well as the impact of its closure on the whole community.
(1445)
Saint-Hubert is in a very good location, close to Montreal. The
investment fund of $1 million which we are setting up will fully
serve the needs of the community and will greatly help it face the
minor economic impact that may result from the closing of the
military base.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elijah Harper (Churchill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
There has been a great deal of misunderstanding between First
Nations and other Canadians. Often we see unwarranted
resentment of basic aboriginal and treaty rights on hunting,
education, health and taxation. This government has a
responsibility to ensure these issues are presented in a more
progressive way.
What is the minister doing to promote understanding, education
and awareness of aboriginal peoples in Canada?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member talks
about understanding, he is talking about relationships between
people. At any given time 15 negotiations are taking place, from
the Micmacs of Nova Scotia to the Northwest Territories, as well
3490
as the B.C. treaty process. These negotiations tend to have a life of
their own.
Within the last couple of months many encouraging things have
happened. The municipalities will sign an agreement with First
Nations in Calgary on Monday. This will be a first in Canada.
Aboriginal recognition day is to be celebrated June 21. These are
people.
The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, which is composed
of people, is entering into an agreement with the First Nations of
New Brunswick, as is the Toronto-Dominion Bank in
Saskatchewan. Business organizations from Montreal are meeting
in Kahnawake with the Kahnawake Mohawks in two months. They
had the biggest meeting they have ever had with the aboriginal
people in Montreal just a couple of months ago.
I commend the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata who is
reviving the bill to pardon Louis Riel, a great Canadian leader, half
French, half aboriginal. That is the relation that I think is needed
and the direction in which we are going and I am quite pleased.
* * *
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberals have promised job, jobs and more jobs. Now the Prince
Rupert grain terminal has announced that it will be shutting down
its operations temporarily on June 15, throwing 91 employees out
of work.
While the grain terminals cut costs, CN Rail, the Canadian
Wheat Board and the Prince Rupert Port Corporation have failed to
provide a competitive, efficient service that would see more grain
going through Prince Rupert.
Why has the government which is responsible for the Canadian
Wheat Board, the Prince Rupert Port Corporation and the new
Canadian Transportation Act failed to implement efficiencies that
would keep Canada's closest grain terminal to the Pacific rim open
for business?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the principal difficulty affecting
Prince Rupert this year is a common difficulty that is affecting all
Canadian grain ports and that is, quite frankly, a shortage of supply.
The hon. gentleman will remember that a couple of years ago the
predicament was exactly the opposite with a huge volume of grain
and congestion in the grain handling and transportation system.
The good news in this situation is that supply and demand have
become far more balanced. It is far more favourable from the
farmers' point of view. The volumes in Canada at the present time
are lower than they have been historically. In fact, around the world
grain supplies are probably at a 20-year low. As a result of that,
prices have increased dramatically to the farmer's advantage.
The difficulty facing Prince Rupert is that grain supplies are
lower now than they have been in a long time.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is talking about a lot of things, except freight rates, port
costs and a few other things which are contributing to this.
Individuals in Prince Rupert are being laid off. Farmers continue
to be brow-beaten by this inflexible government. The ministers of
agriculture and transport should make the changes necessary to
improve transportation so that grain will continue to move through
the port.
Why is the government making working Canadians and Prince
Rupert pay the price for a government controlled uncompetitive
grain transportation system?
(1450 )
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, whatever the marketing system, if
the grain supplies are low and the volume of grain is simply not
there to move, there is nothing that either the government or the
opposition can do to magically increase the volume.
I would point out that we are anticipating a good production
season in 1996. We anticipate Canadian grain volumes will be
substantially improved. With prices in the world, that is once again
good news for farmers.
Recently the House enacted amendments to the legislation
pertaining to transportation generally, and grain transportation in
particular. Those changes in legislation should improve the
regulatory system to make sure that we are evolving toward a
system that is faster and cheaper and more efficient and one in
which the benefits are fairly shared among farmers, shippers and
the railways.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In his May 1996 report, the auditor general has brought to light
the fact that $2 billion's worth of family trusts had been transferred
to the United States free of tax. The Minister of Finance reacted to
this report by asking the Standing Committee on Finance to
consider amendments that could be made to the Income Tax Act to
prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again.
3491
Does the minister acknowledge the fact that all the Standing
Committee on Finance has been asked to do is to review the
specific provisions of the Income Tax Act mentioned by the
auditor general and make recommendations to prevent another
scandal?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my understanding, and I am sure yours, that
parliamentary committees are the masters of their agendas.
I am glad that the committee is reviewing the file that the hon.
member has referenced. We will look forward to the
recommendations.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will remind the minister that, while supporting
a review of the Income Tax Act, we in the opposition believe we
have a duty to shed some light on what government officials did, on
December 23, 1991, to help millionaires save on their taxes.
Why does the government object to our lifting the veil that had
been cast on the conduct of certain senior government officials, a
conduct condemned by the auditor general himself, to put a stop to
the flight of capital across the border? What does the government
have to hide? Who is it trying to protect?
[English]
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will say again that parliamentary committees have full
authority to determine their own agendas.
It is my understanding that the finance committee is looking at
these aspects as they relate to the Income Tax Act. If there are other
issues that are of concern to the members of Parliament and the
recommendations that are coming forward, they will be at public
accounts committee.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration stated that it was the intention of the government to
modernize the oath of citizenship.
Most Canadians would agree that the oath should reflect
contemporary views of the rights and responsibilities of Canadian
citizenship.
Would such an allegiance to Canada be in addition to the current
oath of allegiance to Her Majesty or would it replace the oath to
Her Majesty?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration and Acting Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we have received the report of the parliamentary
committee on immigration and citizenship. This report contains a
large number of recommendations, including one on the oath of
allegiance under the Citizenship Act.
We are currently looking at the possibility of updating the oath
of allegiance, to bring it into line with our times. Let there be no
mistake: our goal is to strengthen Canadian identity and, with this
in mind, all options are being considered.
[English]
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians can accept the premise that new
citizens should take an oath of allegiance to Canada. Why limit
such an oath to new Canadians?
If the government will require all new Canadian citizens have to
take an oath of allegiance to Canada, does it not believe that the
members of this House should be required to take an oath of
allegiance to Canada as well?
(1455 )
The Speaker: I am not sure that question falls under the
responsibilities of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I
think we will pass and go to the hon. member for Drummond.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on
March 13, the minister announced his intention to introduce a
complete bill on new reproductive technologies before the summer
recess.
To date, the Minister of Health has simply announced a
regulation on sperm deposits and has promised a general strategy,
but not a bill.
My question is for the Minister of Health. With the report of the
Baird commission tabled over two and a half years ago, and the
urgent need for legislation, how does the minister explain his
inability to draft a bill on reproductive technologies?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for the question. We will be able to table
in the House a bill on new reproductive technologies within two
weeks.
3492
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa.
Reports of attacks on Nigerians working for democratic reform
in Nigeria are very disturbing. First, the president-elect has been
under detention by the military since 1994 and now, yesterday, the
president's wife was gunned down on a street in Lagos.
Could the secretary of state tell the House how the Canadian
government is responding to this tragic and brutal slaying?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada deplores and condemns
the assassination of Mrs. Abiola. As my colleague said, her
husband is a great democrat who has been in prison in Nigeria since
1994. Her assassination yesterday contributes to the fear and
insecurity in that country.
Canada has been insisting that Nigeria return to democracy and
respect of human rights. Mrs. Abiola has been a strong fighter, not
only for the rights of her husband, but for those of all Nigerians. We
send to her family and to all of the supporters of democracy in
Nigeria our sincere sympathy.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this year
the Minister of Finance snuck in on the fine print of his budget
plan-I refer to the footnote on page 67 of his seniors' benefits
booklet-a 20 per cent clawback for middle income seniors. This is
a 20 per cent tax. It is on top of the unconscionable rates already
imposed on all Canadians by the government, while the Minister of
Finance boasts about no new taxes.
Will the Minister of Finance explain why middle income seniors,
who built this country and worked hard to secure their retirement,
will now find themselves the most heavily taxed people in the
country?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member knows full well that in an era of scarce, indeed
shrinking financial resources, it is crucial to focus help on those
who need it most. That is what we have done in this instance.
The hon. member will also know that it is important to ensure
that there will be a pension system available for young Canadians
comparable to the one which the country now enjoys. That also is
what we have done.
What we have done is far preferable to the position advocated by
the Reform Party, which would lead to the complete evisceration of
the Canada pension plan and government support for retired
seniors.
* * *
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is also for the Minister of Finance.
He will be aware that in yesterday's byelection in Nova Scotia
the GST harmonization was an issue that was front and centre and
that the Liberals came in a humiliating third place.
An hon. member: Who came in first?
Mr. Riis: The NDP came first. He will also be aware that the
premiers of the western provinces have asked that he withdraw
from the GST harmonization scheme.
Will he now recognize that this is the wrong course to take,
follow the advice of the western premiers and pull out of that GST
harmonization scheme?
(1500 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
perhaps I should quote from Robert Shepherd, a columnist for the
Globe and Mail referring to what has been done. I do not often
quote from the Globe and Mail: ``Sure the feds are using other
provinces' tax revenues to ease the harmonization clause for New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, just as they did to top
up Ontario's coffers when the floor dropped out of its tax base
during the 1991 recession or Alberta's when energy prices fell
suddenly''.
He could have gone to talk about the support the federal
government provided western grain farmers in Saskatchewan and
Manitoba when they required help.
Let me simply say national unity is not helped with provincial
premiers engaged in empty fed bashing or attacking other
provinces. National unity is helped when the country recognizes
the regions come together to help each other.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw to the attention of the House the presence
in the gallery of the Canadian Healthy Environment National
Award winners and finalists.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
>
3493
3493
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the report
of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada entitled ``The March 1996
Byelections-Technological Innovations: Reaping the Rewards''.
[Translation]
This document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
* * *
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both
official languages the government's response to 21 petitions.
* * *
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this week Canada is celebrating Environment Week.
While we take this time every year to acknowledge the importance
of a healthy environment to Canadians, this year we also take pride
in celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Department of the
Environment. Therefore it is both a time to reflect on our successes
as a nation and take stock of the challenges that still confront
communities across Canada.
There is a very simple equation we must understand. A healthy
environment will add to the health of our families and
communities, while an unhealthy environment will hurt us all.
Pollution Probe states that 6 per cent of all respiratory
admissions to Canadian hospitals are smog related. Doctors and
health practitioners in urban areas tell us smog and air pollution
cause increased health problems to heart and respiratory disease
sufferers.
Yesterday in the air summit organized by the government of
metropolitan Toronto this was very clear. It also costs our health
care system over a billion dollars a year, conservatively, for these
respiratory ailments. Polluted drinking water has an even more
noticeable cause and effect.
(1505)
So is it not time we all started making healthy choices for our
environment and for ourselves? All Canadians and all levels of
government need to subscribe to strong national standards of
environmental quality for all Canadians in all regions of this great
country.
[Translation]
After all, what we are really talking about is making a choice for
healthy neighbourhoods; a choice for clean water to drink; a choice
for beaches where our children can swim; and a choice for clean
air.
[English]
This is a choice we have to work for. It is a choice in lifestyle, a
choice in how we recycle and reuse. It involves how we get to work
as well as how we work, and of course how we use our resources to
promote our economy without sacrificing a renewable resource and
source of jobs and wealth for our citizens.
Everyday Canadians are making those choices and there are a
great many individuals among us who are working to promote a
healthier Canadian environment. A few of those individuals are
with us today in the public gallery who moments ago the House and
the Chair recognized.
[Translation]
Today, I have the pleasure of announcing the winners of
Canada's Healthy Environment Awards. We had over 200
nominees this year, all of whom have shown a dedication to the
environment which is quite remarkable.
[English]
Of course I cannot mention them all by name, but they range in
age from their teens to their seventies. They are both municipal and
corporate leaders as well as students and teachers. To give an idea
of the kinds of achievements we are celebrating here today, let me
point briefly to the youth leadership winners.
Thirteen-year old Jean-Dominic Lévesque-René of Quebec has
worked hard to promote awareness about the link between
pesticides and cancer, while secondary student Sara McEachern
from British Columbia helped produce a video about what children
can do to save planet earth. These are but two examples of the
choices young Canadians have made to improve Canada's
environment.
The environmental citizens we honour today, the environmental
patriots really, have proven that irrespective of their walks of life
all Canadians are empowered to make an individual contribution to
a healthier and more sustainable environment.
We talk in the House about all the things government should do
for the environment but we tend to forget that it is the individual
who often makes the critical difference. Without great fanfare or
publicity they do it quietly, powerfully and effectively. They are
people who take responsibility for their neighbourhoods and
ultimately their country.
3494
Governments must therefore do their part to promote this brand
of environmental citizenship. The House will be dealing with a
number of important environmental concerns in the coming days
and months, not the least of which will be a revitalized Canadian
Environmental Protection Act, the main tool box Canada has at
its disposition in terms of controlling what goes in our air and in
our water.
There is also endangered species legislation which Canadians
tell us constantly at all levels is important to preserve because of
the animals and plants we care about. If we do not take care of them
we are not taking care of ourselves.
We are also maintaining the international leadership Canada has
been able to forge worldwide, which means honouring our
commitments and taking leadership roles on issues such as climate
change.
[Translation]
We will also continue our environmental partnership with the
United States and Mexico in a meeting of the Commission for
Environmental Co-operation in Toronto at the end of June.
[English]
In many ways our environment goes straight to the heart of what
makes us a nation. Our respect and love for the land and sea is part
of our national and natural heritage. It is a source of national pride
and it continues to attract people from all corners of the globe.
Consequently we must plan for the future in order to protect this
irreplaceable resource.
(1510)
The Prime Minister said the environment must become one of
the major priorities for this government as we prepare for the 21st
century.
Please join me in congratulating some of the Canadians with us
here today who are helping to make that pledge a reality.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I too am
pleased to rise in this House today to recognize Environment Week.
I agree with the Minister of the Environment that it is important
to draw attention to the success stories of individuals and
corporations that have understood how vital it is for our common
future that we protect and enhance our biophysical environment.
Like the minister, the Globe and Mail noted yesterday the
outstanding contribution to the cause of the environment of
individuals like David Suzuki, NGOs like Greenpeace and
Pollution Probe, and corporations like Cascade.
For my part, I would like to recognize the contribution made by
all those who, while they may not win a prize for it, make sure, on a
daily basis, to reduce their energy consumption, to recycle and to
buy fewer overpackaged products, in a word, to act in a way that
respects the integrity of the natural environment they feel
responsible for.
I am confident that, in the near future, these Canadians and
Quebecers will succeed in imposing their wishes and values on the
government as well as on those corporations still refusing to make
the environment a priority.
On the one hand, I share the minister's hopes to see
environmental citizenship develop among Canadians and
Quebecers of all ages. On the other hand, I must dissociate myself
from him, when he talks about the most effective means to achieve
our common goal.
In his speech, the minister referred to the 25th anniversary of
Environment Canada. While it is true that, since it was established,
this department has contributed to the protection of the
environment, we must nevertheless recognize that what it has done
mainly is cause a great deal of duplication and overlap, much as the
minister stubbornly denies it. But interference by the federal
government has been condemned time and time again by
successive Quebec governments, along with the inefficiencies it
causes and, more importantly, the lack of respect for regional
uniqueness it reflects.
Documents, such as the environmental framework entitled
Cadre de référence sur le partage des rôles et responsabilités entre
Québec et le gouvernement fédéral en matière d'environnement et
de faune published by a certain Liberal government in August of
1994, show the negative impact of overlap on the management of
government responsibilities with regard to the environment.
In his speech, the minister referred to the future Canadian
Environmental Protection Act and to the endangered species
legislation he intends to introduce in this House by next year.
I hope that the minister has learned from past mistakes and that,
in an effort to better protect our health and our natural heritage, he
will consider the comments humbly submitted to him by the
official opposition as well as by provincial governments, including
that of Quebec, which fear another federal attempt to unilaterally
impose its will on the provinces, which already play a credible role
in this area.
The recent conference of federal and provincial environment
ministers gives us some hope that Ottawa may adopt a new, more
flexible approach.
The Bloc Quebecois is happy to see the positive results of that
conference, including an action plan on climatic change.
3495
Yet, the minister's recent comments before the standing
committee on the environment suggested that the CCME was no
longer a useful working tool for the federal government.
In closing, I would like to add that, in 1996, no government,
department, business leader or other decision maker should ignore
his or her responsibilities or, even worse, hurt the cause of the
environment.
(1515)
Each decision must therefore be made in light of its impact on
the delicate balance of our global environment. The health of our
children and of all future generations is at stake.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to respond today to the environment
minister's statement on Environment Week.
Our environment is very important. It continues to top opinion
polls as one of the most important subjects to British Columbians
and I think to all Canadians who are very proud of our environment
in Canada. We want to make sure that our healthy environment is
maintained.
As has been pointed out, a healthy environment also leads to a
healthy economy. Certainly anything we can do to enhance our
economy, look after our economy, as well as look after our
environment is a tremendous tag team approach. That is important
to our whole country.
Canadians from coast to coast are very proud of their land. They
have a very close association with the land. Canadians are proud
when visitors to our country comment on our clean streets, our
clean water, our clean surroundings. Our visitors are envious of our
environment and we have a tremendous responsibility to make sure
it is maintained.
Living very close to the Canada-U.S. border as I do, I often hear
comments from our American visitors who come up to admire
Cultus Lake and other clean bodies of water in my riding. They are
very pleased to visit Canada. It is a tremendous tourist attraction to
have a clean environmental record.
Canadians themselves are to be congratulated on maintaining a
high level of environmental awareness and environmental
excellence. This has been achieved through hard work on behalf of
most Canadians who share that concern.
The minister mentioned that his department received over 200
nominees for the Canadian Healthy Environment Awards. I was
exceptionally proud to see a group from my own riding as one of
those nominees. Student representatives as well as the kitchen crew
from Kent Elementary School in Agassiz, B.C. were nominated.
With only 23 candidates from the entire province, they can be very
proud to have been nominated for this award.
Perhaps the minister forgot to mention that there was a little
contest on the Hill today for the greenest, most environmentally
aware parliamentary office. I was very pleased that he gave the
Reform whip's office the award for the cleanest and most
environmentally sensitive office on the Hill. I know the minister
will try harder next year in order to achieve that award for his own
office.
The minister said in his speech that the significance of this week
is to reflect on our successes. If he was referring to the successes of
Canadians who have gone the extra mile to make improvements to
the environment, then he is very correct. The evidence is in the
environment awards presented to the 200 nominees. However, if he
was referring just to the successes of his own department, then I
would argue it was not so obvious. Since assuming power, former
environment minister Sheila Copps and the present minister have
talked a good talk about the environment but have not always been
able to follow through.
Sheila Copps, who today is fighting for re-election in Hamilton,
is clearly embarrassed by her record in her own riding. Whenever
the issue of the Taro dump comes up, Ms. Copps refuses to
comment on it. Again last night there was a debate on that subject. I
think the reason is that for over two years she had a chance as the
environment minister to do an environmental assessment on the
Taro dump site and she refused. Today the residents of Hamilton
are judging her byelection campaign in part on her lack of action in
that area.
As mentioned by the member for Fraser Valley West, in Sydney,
Nova Scotia the tar ponds are a real problem. They are laden with
PCBs. Is the minister going to move to clean that up soon? He
knows the site. He has been there. The talk is right but we need
some action on the Nova Scotia tar ponds problem. Although we
are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the Department of the
Environment today, I hope it does not take another 25 years to
clean up the tar ponds. We have to get moving on it rather than just
talking about it.
Another problem the minister is aware of is off the coast of
Prince Edward Island. On the ocean floor is the Irving Whale oil
barge with its 4,000 tonnes of heavy bunker sea fuel oil. Last
summer the government spent more than $12 million in an attempt
to lift that barge only to discover that the barge also contained
6,800 litres of PCBs.
(1520)
Again, not the current minister but the minister at the time, Ms.
Sheila Copps, said she did not know that PCBs were on board but
the operation had to be stopped halfway through. As the member
for New Westminster-Burnaby and the Reform Party pointed out,
Ms. Copps had actually tabled a brief in the House of Commons
that she did know about this but had not taken it into account before
3496
she started the lifting project. It was really a $12 million failed
experiment to lift the barge.
Today the minister said that a healthy environment will add to
the health of our families and our communities. I would hope on
the projects I specifically mentioned the minister will realize that
those specific sites are making people in that area nervous about
their health and their communities as well. I hope he will take
action on those sooner rather than later.
The minister also stated that governments must do their part to
promote the idea of environmental citizenship. He is right. They
must take part and it must be very much a leadership role. I know
he is working with the Canadian Council of Ministers of the
Environment to try to reduce the duplication to make sure that
while the environment is protected, the regulatory mess does not
become an impediment to environmental clean-ups and to find
ways to work with the provinces to make sure it happens
efficiently.
I know he has spoken the right words. I hope he will take that
lead and make sure the agreement between the environment
ministers actually results in a cleaner environment for all of
Canada.
In closing, let me again congratulate all those who received the
achievement awards as well as all those who were nominated.
Through these people we see that actions speak much louder than
words. I extend my congratulations to them and to the minister for
initiating and handing out those awards. I wish the best of luck to
the minister on next year's office award.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As the New
Democratic Party environment critic, I would like an opportunity
to respond today as well. I wonder if you would seek unanimous
consent from the Chamber.
The Deputy Speaker: I am pleased to do so. Is there unanimous
consent to allow the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow
Lake to respond?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the will of the House to allow me to say a few
words today on Environment Week. I congratulate the Minister of
the Environment for his strong words in support of the environment
and I congratulate those who this week have been recognized for
their environmental achievements.
There certainly are a great number of people across Canada who
are actively engaged in environmental projects, activities and
educational matters. They are doing a great deal to further the
interests of this planet. I congratulate each and every one of them.
A great number of people are concerned about the future of the
environment, about the future of the habitat on Earth and indeed
about the planet itself. They may not have been able to participate
in local projects or to initiate them, but they want to see those who
are able to work on environmental matters have the resources to do
so. They want to see the federal government take the necessary
action to ensure there is a good strong federal presence on
environmental issues.
I noticed a slight change today in some of the language the
minister is using. I simply want to take a minute to point out a
couple of things. Recently the minister has talked about the need
for a strong federal role on the environment. The other day in
question period I took the opportunity to congratulate him on his
stand on a strong federal role. Following the meeting of the
Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, the minister is
now talking about strong national standards instead of the need for
a strong federal role. The ministers have begun to talk about
national standards rather than the presence of the federal
government in the field.
(1525 )
Members of the public will recognize there is a big difference
between the need for strong national standards, which we all adhere
to, and the need for a strong federal role, a governmental presence
in environmental issues. I can stress that by pointing to a couple of
specific areas that need some attention, particularly when we look
at what will be happening in the near future.
The Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development recently issued a report on the review of the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The government response
to the CEPA review fell short of expectations.
The amendments to CEPA that the government must put forward
should be coming forward in the very near future. It is very
important to people concerned about the environment across
Canada that the message which was sent to the government by the
Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable
Development be fulfilled. That message was about the need for a
strong federal role in dealing with toxic chemicals and other
regulations under CEPA.
On the biotechnology chapter, to actually consider moving
biotechnology to agriculture from the environment so that those
who are promoting the business of biotechnology will also be
charged with enforcing regulatory compliance makes absolutely no
sense. We have to keep these matters within the context of the
environment.
I do not want to abuse the time the House has given me today
because I appreciate it very much. I mentioned the Fisheries Act in
a question the other day. I want to reiterate that to the minister.
At the Canadian Environmental Network meeting in Hamilton
on the weekend, the minister received a strong statement about the
federal role in the environment which was signed by 100
organizations across Canada. I would ask the minister to review,
support and act on that statement from CEN.
3497
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the
first report of the Standing Committee on Industry. In accordance
with its order of reference of Monday, May 22, 1996, your
committee has considered Bill C-4, an act to amend the Standards
Council of Canada Act and agrees to report it without amendment.
* * *
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 27 and to special order, I
move:
That, during the 10 sitting days before June 23, 1996, on Mondays, Tuesdays,
and Wednesdays the ordinary time of daily adjournment shall be 9.30 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker: It is a debatable motion. Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1530)
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the
House to move a motion. I move:
That four members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and two
staff persons of the committee be authorized to travel to Victoria, British
Columbia to attend the annual conference of the Canada Council of Public
Accounts Committees from September 8 to September 10, 1996.
[
Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the parties have been consulted, and I think you
will find unanimous consent for this motion.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two petitions to present. One is from citizens of
London, Ontario and the other is from citizens of Toronto.
The petitioners say that abolishing judicial review for convicted
lifers under article 745 of the Criminal Code will only serve to
increase both the human and economic costs of the criminal justice
system and increase public fear and misconceptions about crime
among the Canadian public.
They say that article 745 is not a loophole, does not provide
automatic release and is actually carried out by a jury made up of
members of the community. They say that if there are concerns that
the individual under review poses a risk of committing violence in
the community, that person is not released.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to oppose the repeal
of article 745 and to launch a concerted public education campaign
to promote the need for more responsible and humane criminal
justice approaches to enhance the safety of all Canadians.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
present a petition signed by 2,016 petitioners.
The petitioners request that Parliament proceed immediately
with amendments to the Criminal Code which will ensure that a
sentence given to anyone convicted of driving while impaired or
causing injury or death while impaired reflect both the severity of
the crime and zero tolerance by Canada toward the crime.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, 73,300
people have signed a petition asking the Minister of Health not to
go ahead with his plan to amend the regulations on importing raw
milk cheese into Canada.
To avoid cluttering up the House, I am tabling a list of 45
signatures requesting the minister not to amend the regulations. I
will send the remaining signatures to the minister directly.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions to present pursuant to Standing Order 36.
3498
The first comes from Regina, Saskatchewan. The petitioners
draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home
and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession
which has not been recognized for its value to society.
They also state the Income Tax Act discriminates against
traditional families that make the choice to provide care in the
home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill or the
aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
second comes from Godfrey, Ontario.
The petitioners bring to the attention of the House that
consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or
impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome
and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable
by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions pursuant to
Standing Order 36.
The first is from residents of Etobicoke, Ontario. The petitioners
support effective endangered species legislation. Therefore they
pray and call on Parliament to support the strengthening of the
recent legislative proposal for an effective Endangered Species
Act.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Prince Albert-Churchill River, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is also from residents of
Etobicoke, Ontario.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament will not amend
the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
charter of rights and freedoms to add the phrase sexual orientation.
(1535 )
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour of
presenting the following petition.
The petitioners pray and request that Parliament amend the
Criminal Code of Canada to set the age of consent at 18 so as
provide protection from exploitation and abuses. There are close to
1,000 signatures.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following questions will be answered today: Question No. 13.
[Text]
Question No. 13-Mr. Gilmour:
What was the total dollar amount (direct and indirect) and source of
government funding included in the 1995-96 estimates to the Western Canada
Wilderness Committee?
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): In 1995-96,
Human Resources Development Canada provided funding in the
amount of $200,000 to the Western Canada Wilderness Committee
for a youth service Canada project.
In 1995-96, the following departments and agencies report that
they have not provided any funding to the Western Canada
Wilderness Committee: Canadian International Development
Agency; Department of Canadian Heritage; Environment Canada;
National Capital Commission; Natural Resources Canada.
Other departments and agencies have not been canvassed
concerning this question as they had not provided funding to the
Western Wilderness Committee in previous questions dealing with
this subject.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 2 could be made an Order for Return, the return
would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remain questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order, still for the same reason. I also
rose on May 27, 1996 and I do so today with respect to Question
Q-19, a question on the Order Paper for over 45 days, since I tabled
it on March 6.
Yesterday, I met the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs in
committee, he appeared to be very knowledgeable when answering
3499
my questions. Since this is a question that relates directly to his
area of responsibility, it does not take a rocket scientist and 200
officials to research it.
I would simply like to know if, in the past five years, there
existed-within the Privy Council, the Department of the Solicitor
General of Canada, or elsewhere in the federal government-an
emergency measures co-ordinating unit, and if so, who and what
are its past and present members, budget meeting dates, and
subjects of discussion at each meeting? Has this unit drawn up
plans for emergency situations or not, and, if so, what are those
plans?
This sort of thing, in a department that spends millions of
dollars, ought to be easy enough to answer quickly.
I ask the government opposite when it will answer my question.
These questions are easily answered. Millions of dollars were spent
on the referendum, and on Canadian unity. Surely they can
calculate figures and do accounts. They should be able to answer
such simple questions.
I warn the representative of the Liberal government, that I will
ask this question every week. Perhaps that will not please the
minister before me, the member for Hull-Aylmer. Perhaps you do
not find it pleasing because some of the money was spent while you
were Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
Perhaps we should find out how you spent this money, and how
much you spent in Quebec. Answer the questions, if you have
nothing to hide. Instead of answering me directly, while your
microphone is not on and we cannot hear your stupid remarks-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Deputy Speaker: Dear colleague, I think the point is clear.
Before asking our colleague's permission to honour this request,
does the parliamentary secretary wish to answer the hon. member?
[English]
Mr. Zed: Mr. Speaker, as always, my colleague is eloquent in his
attempts to make his point. We appreciate his patience.
If he has already spoken to the minister on the subject then no
doubt he has received some assurances the answer he was seeking
is available. We are attempting to get the information clarified and
it is certainly our hope to provide the information to the member as
soon as it becomes available.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there agreement to accept the Order for
Return?
An hon. member: No.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: I would like to inform my colleagues that,
because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be
extended by 23 minutes.
_____________________________________________
3499
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ)
moved:
That this House condemn the federal government for its regressive research
and development policies in regard to Quebec, in particular its unilateral
decision to cut the federal contribution of $7.2 million planned for the Canadian
Centre for Magnetic Fusion in Varennes.
She said: Mr. Speaker, given the short time available, I will share
my 20-minute period with the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
(1540)
The non-votable motion put forward by the official opposition
for debate today is about research and development.
For a few years, the Bloc Quebecois has been deploring the fact
that Quebec is being underfinanced by the federal government in
the area of research and development. Year after year, the figures
clearly show that Quebec does not receive its fair share of the
money invested in research and development by the federal
government. More recently, the latest round of federal cuts has
widened the gap, especially the federal government's withdrawal
from the only major scientific project in Quebec, the Varennes
tokamak project.
My motion reads as follows:
That this House condemn the federal government for its regressive research
and development policies in regard to Quebec, in particular its unilateral
decision to cut the federal contribution of $7.2 million planned for the Canadian
Centre for Magnetic Fusion in Varennes.
I would like to set the record straight on a completely erroneous
piece of information often used by the Minister of Natural
Resources in answering the official opposition's questions. In fact,
my colleague from Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies pointed this out to
the House this afternoon during statements by members just before
question period.
When the minister compares Quebec's share with that of the
other provinces, she never includes the amounts allocated to the
national capital region, almost all of which is located in Ontario.
3500
Let us look a little more closely at this situation, in light of a
study done by the Quebec Ministry of Industry, Trade, Science
and Technology on federal spending in research and development.
Between 1979 and 1991, six out of ten provinces were
overfinanced, Ontario, of course, coming out ahead with a $3
billion surplus.
During the same period, Quebec was seriously underfinanced by
$2.5 billion, followed by Alberta with $1.5 billion, British
Columbia with $369 million, and Saskatchewan with $124 million.
In the last few years, however, the situation has been getting a little
better in Saskatchewan, British Columbia and Alberta.
The most common indicator showing how intensive the research
and development effort was is the ratio of net domestic R and D
expenditures to gross domestic product.
On that score, if the federal government had been fair, this ratio
would have been 1.82 per cent, instead of 1.71 per cent in 1991.
Research and development funding is usually divided between
intra- and extra-mural expenditures.
On the subject of intra-mural expenditures, that is to say
expenditures for federal laboratories, the study showed that, for
one thing, only 13.8 per cent of intra-mural expenditures went to
Quebec, compared to 57.7 per cent to Ontario.
The high concentration of federal laboratories in the Ottawa
region only partly explains why Ontario received such a large share
of the funding. In the areas of natural science and engineering, the
federal government has been carrying out more intra-mural
research outside of Ottawa, but still within Ontario, than in any of
the four other major regions of Canada, namely Quebec, British
Columbia, the prairies and Atlantic Canada.
It is also estimated that, between 1963 and 1991, Quebec lost, in
intra-mural funding alone, more than $5.3 billion in 1991 dollars.
In addition, in 1991, the relative scarcity of federal research and
development laboratories in Quebec translated into a shortage of
more than 2,230 person-years, or eight times the combined staff
level of the Biotechnology Research Institute and the Industrial
Materials Institute, two of the main federal laboratories in the
Montreal area.
Finally, as regards assistance to businesses, or extra-mural
expenditures, the study concluded that, with its $32 million deficit,
Quebec was the only province to have incurred in 1991 a
significant deficit in terms of federal industrial research and
development expenditures.
There is an unmistakable connection between the location of
federal research facilities and the allocation of federal business. It
is therefore little wonder that, over the 1979-1990 period, Ottawa
businesses were awarded more contracts and that the annual
amounts paid to each of them for federal research and development
work were much higher than anywhere else.
(1545)
A June 1995 study commissioned by the INRS, Quebec's
national institute for scientific research, came to similar
conclusions. The authors of the study also pointed out that only 25
of the 156 federal laboratories in Canada are located in Quebec.
This means 16 per cent of them, compared to 62 per cent for
Ontario, or a 40 per cent difference. Laboratories in Quebec only
employ 3,002 of the 22,360 scientists and technicians working in
federal facilities, barely 13.4 per cent of the total, compared to 49
per cent for Ontario.
The authors of the study also pointed out that, since 1980, the
Government of Canada has been favouring the advanced
technology sector. The effect of this policy is that the four federal
laboratories in Quebec simply do not compare with the new ones in
Ontario and Manitoba. For example, a huge federal facility
employing 2,227 researchers in the nuclear energy sector was set
up in Ontario, while another one employs 925 people in Manitoba.
There is simply no comparison with the situation in Quebec.
Quebec's largest laboratory was established in the airspace
sector. It employs 268 people, while another facility located in
Ottawa recruited 297 people. It would have been much simpler to
centralize, for once, the aerospace industry in a single Quebec
location.
A new communication and information techniques facility hired
180 people in Quebec, but three similar laboratories located in
Ottawa employ 566 people. The authors of the study also indicated
that the proportion of contracts awarded in Quebec under the
federal contracting out policy went down from 21.6 per cent to 13
per cent over a period of about 20 years ending in 1994.
Since 1985, this proportion never exceeded 15.5 per cent. In fact,
barely 4 per cent of Quebec companies active in research and
development get federal contracts in the science and technology
sector. In Canada, there does not seem to be money available for
science, research and knowledge. Yet, these will be the keys to
success in the 21st century. By contrast, the federal government can
afford to spend over $7 million on flags and kites, as pointed out
yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition.
I ask the government to reread the letter written by the president
of the Canadian Association of Physicists, Mr. Vincett. Before
concluding, I will read a few excerpts of his letter. In reference to
the background, Mr. Vincett writes:
3501
[English]
``Your government has consistently stressed the importance of
science and technology to Canada's economic future. You have
kept cuts to the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council
to a level less than that suffered by many agencies. More recently,
your government's report `Science and Technology for the New
Century' has again emphasized the critical role of science and
technology''.
[Translation]
In reference to the issue, the president says:
[English]
``Recent deficit reduction efforts have obliged Natural
Resources Canada to concentrate on its core mandate which is not
of course science and technology. Yet the budget which supports
science of broad national importance has not been transferred to
Industry Canada. As a result, major national science facilities will
lose their funding. This together with the likely effects on the
university research infrastructure of cuts to the transfer payments
and the significant closures which are occurring as a result of cuts
to the national science and engineering research council place your
entire science and technology strategy at serious risk and endanger
the future health of the economy as we move into a knowledge
based world''.
[Translation]
In reference to the importance of basic science, Mr. Vincett
writes:
[English]
``The threatened damage to Canada's basic effort will be a
disaster for future economic growth since basic science is the
foundation upon which most technological and economic advances
depend. As the chairman of the Bank of Nova Scotia said in 1994:
`Public support for science-is one of the very few categories of
government spending that deserves to be increased-studies have
shown conclusively that the overall return to society from
investment in knowledge creation is extremely high'''.
(1550)
[Translation]
The solution proposed by the president is the following:
[English]
``This issue transcends individual government departments.
Unlike most of the developed world, Canada does not have a
co-ordinated policy for the establishment, operation and closure of
national scientific facilities. As a result, actions in one department
can have a devastating effect on programs in another. I strongly
urge you to establish an expert committee to report to you quickly
on what such a co-ordinated policy should contain''.
[Translation]
It would be in the interest of the ministers who received a copy
of this letter, and the Prime Minister, to read it over again, to make
sure Canada is not headed for an even worse economic future.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, you may be sure that if the official opposition has decided
to dedicate one of its opposition days to research and development,
it is because we have very serious reasons for wanting to see
corrective action taken. I hope that the Minister of Natural
Resources, who we just heard is going to take part in the debate,
will understand fully the gravity of the situation.
Before going into detail, I know that my colleague, the member
for Verchères, will give a complete picture of the discrimination
being suffered by the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion, since,
as you know, the government is getting ready to close down
unilaterally what is undoubtedly one, if not the, major natural
sciences facility in Quebec.
I hope that the minister will take advantage of this debate to
honour a commitment she made when she appeared before the
natural resources sub-committee, and give a solemn undertaking to
find alternative funding, because that is the solution.
We can understand that the government must put its fiscal house
in order. But why is it that for decades now-in fact, it started with
the creation of the National Research Council of Canada in the
1950s-Quebec has systematically and consistently lost out when
it comes to research and development?
So that it is very clear what we are talking about during the
debate, I would like to propose that we define research and
development as work that is creative in nature and that is carried
out in a systematic fashion in order to increase the stock of
knowledge or devise new applications for this knowledge.
Why is research and development so important and why have all
industrialized countries that have taken charge of their
development been concerned with having a rigorous and consistent
policy, which incidentally is not the case for Canada, which, as we
speak, still has no systematic research and development policy?
Unbelievably, its policy is completely ad hoc.
Research and development is important because it adds to
knowledge, and it adds to value added, obviously enabling us to
establish links with the important export sector.
It is nonetheless very obvious that Canada's research and
development performance is very weak, and I am anxious to hear
what the Minister of Natural Resources has to say about this,
because all industrialized countries do R and D. On average,
3502
industrialized countries devote 2.3 per cent of their GDP to
research and development policies or investments.
(1555)
Imagine, for a few years already, Canada has been stagnating
with investments amounting to 1.5 per cent. Simply put, of all
industrialized countries, only Italy, Iceland and Ireland show a
worse performance than Canada. Sweden, Japan, Switzerland, the
United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Finland, the
Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, and Austria perform
better than Canada with regard to R & D.
What is worrisome and should bring Quebec ministers to spring
into action is the systemic discrimination against Quebec regarding
R & D. Some would say that, looking at the system as a whole,
there might be some discrepancies in certain sectors, which is
acceptable.
But who in the government, which minister is going to be frank
and lucid enough to explain to us how it is that there is a four
billion dollar a year difference between investments made by the
federal government in a province like Ontario and its investments
in Quebec? How can that be explained?
I know that the Minister of Natural Resources will be at a loss to
explain this. How can she explain that, year in and year out, there
are between 25 and 30 federal research laboratories in Quebec and
close to 80 in Ontario? Are there factors we should know about
which could explain this state of affairs?
I will give you more precise numbers to show that, if the official
opposition has decided to talk about R & D, it is not on a whim, it is
not because we think that this is only a bad stretch we have to go
through.
The Minister of Natural Resources, who is the most incendiary
of all ministers in this government, must be aware of the
discrimination Quebec has been the victim of for the last three
decades. The government's systematic interventions and policies in
this respect started in the 1950s and have been going on now for
three, almost four decades.
It found a way to concentrate most of its investments in what the
member for Rimouski-Témiscouata rightly called intra muros
projects; namely, the federal government spends around seven
billion dollars on its R & D policies according to two principles. It
does it in its laboratories, the number of which is estimated at about
177.
The natural resources minister will certainly share the
indignation I feel when I see that the government did not see fit to
establish a regional development policy in the area of research and
development. Had it been serious, it would have ensured that
Atlantic Canada, western Canada, Ontario and Quebec could
benefit equally from investments in R and D.
I understand this is not a mathematical question. But when there
is a difference such as the one that exists between Quebec and
Ontario, a difference supported by the government, what are we to
think? I challenge the minister. When we analysed the merits of the
Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion project, which involved
Hydro-Quebec and the Institut national de la recherche
scientifique, what scientist in Quebec would have thought that
somebody would be foolhardy enough-and I think irresponsible
would be the right word to use here-to cancel such a project?
Everybody agrees that the minister was a brilliant lawyer in the
past and I challenge her to rise in this House and name one scientist
in Quebec who supports her decision. The fact is that there are two
major research and development projects in Quebec: the Canadian
Space Agency, whose $300 million budget was reduced to about
$200 million, and the Varennes project.
(1600)
It is quite simple: in the area of research and development,
especially natural sciences, whenever we looked for examples of
major projects, we had two of them before us: the Canadian Space
Agency, which was cut, and the project under the responsibility of
the Minister of Natural Resources.
The merits of this project were unanimously recognized, first of
all, because $70 million was invested in infrastructure and second,
because 100 researchers with Ph. D.'s in engineering, in physics
and in other fields that are extremely important to economic
development were involved.
Everyone was in favour. The whole scientific community had
hopes of a promising future for this project. Then, without warning,
the government had the nerve to unilaterally and shamelessly cut
one of Quebec's most promising projects. That is what federalism
means in the area of research and development: the inability to
arbitrate, to strike a balance that could have helped Quebec in the
past and that could still help it today.
What corrective measures is the government proposing? In fact,
the whole history of research and development since the 1950s is a
history of systemic discrimination against Quebec. Let me say, in
closing, that only in one program did Quebec play a significant
role: the Defence Industry Productivity Program or DIPP, which is
understandable since the Canadian aerospace and aircraft
manufacturing industries are concentrated in Montreal. Believe it
or not, this government has the nerve and the chutzpah to dismantle
this program, so that Quebec is now losing out in all areas of
research and development.
3503
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to respond to the
comments made by my hon. colleagues on the other side of the
House.
First let me thank my colleague for his reference to me as a
brilliant lawyer. I believe it is undue flattery as will be revealed in
the coming minutes. Anyway, I thank him for that.
It is an honour for me to be able to respond to the motion by the
hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata. If I understand the
motion, the hon. member wants to condemn the Government of
Canada for ``its regressive research and development policies in
regard to Quebec''. She then goes on to criticize a decision to cut
the federal contribution to the Canadian Centre for Magnetic
Fusion in Varennes.
I submit that the hon. member does not want, will not look and
does not want to look at the federal S and T strategy in the broader
context of what it means for all Canadians. This is obviously the
hon. member's prerogative.
Evidently she is not interested in science and technology policy
beyond the borders of her home province. Nor does she want to put
the Government of Canada's spending on science and technology
in the context of the overall strategy to reduce the deficit. She
ignores the federal deficit in the same week that her former leader,
the premier of Quebec, has gone to the investment community of
New York to tell American investors that his number one
preoccupation is to cut Quebec's deficit.
Perhaps she will take the advice of her former leader, the now
premier of Quebec, if she will not listen to what we have to say on
this side of the House. I am certain that the premier of Quebec will
tell her that deficit reduction requires tough choices. He will tell
her that she has to assess her priorities. Not every program can
continue to receive funding if we want to bring the deficit under
control.
I will argue that the federal government cannot provide funding
for fusion R and D at this time because fusion research does not
meet our current criteria for funding. There is every indication that
it will take at least another 30 years of research before energy
supplies from fusion technology can be realized on a commercial
basis.
(1605 )
We have had to make tough choices. We know we have had to
cut funding for some programs that we would otherwise want to
maintain. Above all, we have to make strategic decisions on how
best to invest the $5.5 billion that the Government of Canada
spends on science and technology.
Out of that S and T budget, the Government of Canada spent
$3.1 billion on research and development initiatives in 1992-93.
Did Quebec get a fair share of that investment? Did the federal
government, as the hon. member accuses, implement a regressive
R and D policy for Quebec? Members will find that Quebec
received $692 million in federal R and D spending in that year.
Another $13 million was spent on the Quebec side of the border in
the national capital region.
Taking the national capital region out of the formula, as many
industrialized countries do in calculating regional distribution of R
and D spending, we find that the $692 million spent in Quebec
represents 28 per cent of all spending outside the national capital
region. I would suggest that is more than fair. More to the point, I
do not see how the hon. member opposite can complain that the
federal government has regressive R and D policies with regard to
Quebec.
The amount of $692 million is a very sizeable investment in
Quebec R and D. It comes from a tax base into which all Canadians
pay. An independent Quebec would have to come up with a similar
amount, in addition to its current provincial spending, if it wanted
to maintain the current level of R and D in the province of Quebec.
In addition, members across and all Quebecers should carefully
consider the investment that the Government of Canada has made
into new research facilities over the past number of years.
Let me cite only a few examples. In 1987 Quebec got the Food
Research and Development Centre and the Maurice Lamontagne
Institute. In 1989, it got the space agency, a research agency, I
believe it is fair to say, of which all Canadians are immensely
proud. All Canadians were proud to see Canadian astronaut Marc
Garneau on his second shuttle mission two weeks ago.
The true measure of federal investment in R and D is not
measured even by such major investments as these. It is also
measured by R and D grants and contracts to industry and
universities. Quebec receives 30 per cent of that type of funding. In
addition, Quebec gets a higher than average share of R and D tax
credits because of the concentration of R and D in that province.
According to a recent report from Simon Fraser Institute, Quebec
based firms claimed 41 per cent of all R and D tax credits claimed
in Canada in 1992.
Since 1981 the investment of the federal government in fusion
research at the Tokamak de Varennes alone has amounted to $90
million. This investment has helped to develop scientific and
industrial research in Quebec.
The federal government is continuing to fund research and
development of energy technology in the province. It will be
primarily, and I have said this in the House before, in areas of
energy efficiency and renewable energy systems at Varennes
3504
laboratories, which opened four years ago. This program has an
annual budget of $6 million and employs approximately 50 people.
In nuclear energy, the mandate of Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited is to seek to maintain a viable, competitive business in
supplying and servicing Candu reactors at a reduced cost to the
federal government.
Electricity generation from Candu nuclear energy technology is
an economic reality today. Candu is already a success and has a
good chance of achieving even greater success internationally.
High technology industries in Quebec will continue to benefit from
the nuclear industry through contracts developed from Candu sales
to Korea and through the good performance of the Gentilly-2
Candu reactor. Consultants' studies show that a typical Candu 6
sale overseas could bring over $100 million in contracts to Quebec
and generate about 4,000 person years of employment.
(1610)
I would ask the hon. member opposite again; how in light of
these numbers, in light of these benefits to Quebec, can she make
the case that the federal government has regressive R and D
policies for Quebec?
Let me broaden the scope of my argument for the benefit of all
members of the House and put the decision regarding federal
funding for fusion R and D in the context of overall federal
priorities and the priorities for federal participation in science and
technology activities.
As all members know, the Government of Canada faces the
challenge of reducing the deficit in order to manage the debt and
maintain a stable foundation for new jobs and growth across the
nation. We are determined to meet our objectives, and as we all
know, we are making progress toward our objectives.
In addition, at this time we are living up to our commitment to
all Canadians to be fair and compassionate in our decision making
by putting in place new building blocks for security and prosperity.
The criteria that my department is using to determine its
priorities for research and development activities mirror the overall
emphasis on jobs and growth in the near term that the federal
government is focusing on as a whole. Specifically, the energy R
and D priorities at Natural Resources Canada are sustainable
development, energy efficiency, renewable energy sources, the
science of climate change and non-conventional hydrocarbon
resources.
Every thoughtful Canadian who is concerned about the vast
range of services provided by the federal government and the
equally vast cost of providing these services knows that the
government must set priorities and must make difficult decisions.
That is why this government was elected, to make these decisions,
to allocate our limited funding accordingly and to take action. The
federal government must concentrate its resources on its highest
priorities and strive for their success.
The focus of the federal government is on activities that will
bring results in the near to medium term. As I noted earlier,
commercial generation of electricity from fusion is uncertain.
Assuming that an economically viable technology could be
developed, it is at least 30 years away.
Last March, following extensive consultations with Canadians
the Government of Canada introduced a science and technology
strategy that lays the foundation for the decisions we must make in
prioritizing S and T in Canada.
The strategy demonstrates concretely how the federal
government is getting its house in order so that it will be a better
partner to the other players in Canada's innovation system, the
private sector, academic institutions and other orders of
government. The strategy sets out the Government of Canada's
priorities in four key areas.
First, it defines national goals for science and technology. These
goals are sustainable job creation and economic growth, improved
quality of life and advancement of knowledge.
Second, it describes the federal government's core S and T
activities.
Third, it outlines a new system of governance within federal
departments that bring science and technology to the centre of the
decision making process in cabinet.
Finally, the S and T strategy provides operating principles to
guide federal departments and agencies.
Keeping in mind these over-arching principles, let us return to
the question of energy R and D. Canada is amply endowed with a
variety of resources for the generation of electricity, including
hydro, fossil, nuclear and renewable energy sources. We have
assigned a high priority to research into efficiency gains in the
current production and use of energy.
(1615 )
The national fusion program is a good program but it does not
rank as a high priority in the federal government's overall science
and technology objectives. Cuts are planned for federal funding for
fusion research in both Ontario and Quebec. There will also be cuts
to the basic science program of Atomic Energy Canada Ltd.,
mostly in Ontario.
For a number of years the federal government has co-funded
research and development of fusion, the national fusion program,
in partnership with Hydro Quebec and Ontario Hydro. Recently the
annual cost has been $7.2 million for the Quebec part of the
program and $4.4 million for the Ontario portion.
3505
More than 70 Canadian high technology companies and 6
universities have benefited and will continue to benefit well into
the future from the fusion research program. As I mentioned, in
drawing up the 1996-97 budget the government decided not to
provide funds for research and development of fusion beyond
March 1997.
The agreements among the partners stipulate one year's notice
for ending contributions to the program. We have exercised that
right. This provides for an orderly transition. The other partners
have a year in which to make adjustments.
Hydro Quebec and Ontario Hydro have the option of continuing
with the program independent of federal funding. Most of the
industrial and commercial benefits of such work would be in
Ontario and Quebec. If these provincial utilities consider fusion to
be a priority it is reasonable to expect that they devote more
resources to this priority.
As I mentioned in committee last week, I have asked my
officials to facilitate discussions to help the utilities and other
interested parties during the transition to seek alternative sources
of funding. I make it clear again this afternoon that there will be no
more funding from the Government of Canada.
Taxpayers would like the government to participate in many of
the outstanding projects which merit public support, but informed
and concerned taxpayers also know as never before that
government resources are limited. They elected this government to
make tough decisions. Our decision to terminate funding for fusion
R and D is one of those decisions.
I believe I have established a solid argument that justifies the
Government of Canada's decision to terminate federal funding for
fusion R and D. The government is doing all it can to meet its
overall priorities of addressing the deficit and improving the
climate for jobs and growth. Meeting these objectives will provide
substantial benefits for present and future generations of all
Canadians.
We are determined to meet our objectives and we are making
progress toward our objectives. We have identified clear and
consistent criteria on near term goals to priorize our spending and
we are making the tough and necessary decisions keeping us on
track to meet our deficit reduction targets and, as important, to
meet our objectives in terms of encouraging jobs and growth.
The Government of Canada is making a substantial contribution
to R and D in Quebec. I do not think anything could be clearer in
light of the numbers I discussed earlier. Simply put, however,
fusion does not meet our criteria but we are working on many other
programs in the province of Quebec and all over the country that do
meet our S and T criteria.
This is not a regressive policy for R and D in Quebec. This is a
policy with a clear vision to encourage jobs and growth for present
and future generations of Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the minister had to
say and my conclusion is that she would be well advised to find out
more about Quebec. It is clear that she has been unable to identify
accurately the difficulties facing Quebec, and in particular has
failed to make the comparisons that must be made concerning
investment in Ontario as opposed to Quebec.
(1620)
I have two questions for her. Is the minister prepared to admit
that, when Quebec and Ontario are compared, there really is a
difference between research contracts awarded to federal
laboratories? Does she agree, and on what figures does she base her
answer? And if she does not agree, can she tell us why and on the
basis of what figures? The first department to identify this
difference was the Quebec Federal Office of Regional
Development. It funded a study that mentioned a $4 billion
difference.
I think that the minister will have to agree with the official
opposition's evaluation of R and D spending. Can the minister
again tell us what she intends to do to find alternative funding,
which can come from the National Research Council of Canada or
the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council? These
are, after all, organizations that give out grants and have budgets of
close to $400 million.
I would like the minister, out of respect for Quebec, for its
scientific community, and for the R and D deficit it is assuming, to
rise today in her place and promise, as she did before the
committee, but to now do so clearly here in the House so that it
really means something, and so that among our fellow
parliamentarians we can keep our promises. I would like the
minister to rise and tell us what she intends to do to find alternative
funding so that we can save the tokamak facility. This is why we
are here as the official opposition and I think that we are fulfilling
our responsibilities. That is the only real way to defend the interests
of Quebec.
[English]
Ms. McLellan: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows since he
and I have talked about this on numerous occasions, I have
undertaken to nominate someone from my department who will be
available to work with other stakeholders, if requested, to find
alternative funding for the Tokamak fusion project. I made that
statement in committee last week. It is a policy which we pursue in
relation to all areas where the federal government is withdrawing,
changing or restructuring its role, and there is a transition period
3506
involved. I will nominate that person. If that person is requested to
participate in a multi-stakeholder project, so much the better.
I have to make it very clear, as I did in committee, there is no
alternative funding within the federal government for this project.
I return to a point I have made before. Fusion research is not
commercially viable at this point. However, fusion research is
pursued for commercial applicability and there are some entities in
this country that stand to gain much more than others if fusion
research sometime in the future, in the next 30 or 40 years, does
become commercially viable. Hydro Quebec is one of those
entities. Ontario Hydro is another.
The Canadian taxpayer has incubated fusion research for some
20 years. The federal government and the Canadian taxpayer have
spent $90 million incubating fusion research in the province of
Quebec and some $42 million incubating fusion research in the
province of Ontario. If fusion is a priority for these two provinces,
for the two utilities or for other elements of the private sector, I
suggest Canadian taxpayers have done their part. It is now time for
others, for whom this research may provide direct economic gain in
the future, to pick up the shortfall and make fusion research a
priority.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to return to a point I made in my address,
which was in reference to the letter from Professor Vincett stating
that, contrary to all of the evolved countries in the world, Canada
has not established a co-ordination policy. The professor said:
[English]
``As a result, action in one department can have a devastating
effect on programs in another. I strongly urge you to establish an
expert committee to report to you quickly on what such a
co-ordinated policy should contain.
(1625 )
``In the meantime, to avoid unintended damage which could take
decades to repair I appeal to you to provide at a minimum bridge
funding to the centres involved until an integrated policy is in place
or alternate financing has been found. If clear action is not taken in
the next month or two, the researchers involved will take jobs
abroad and our investment in most of these programs will be
irretrievably lost''.
[Translation]
Such is the advice of a Canadian expert, the president of the
Canadian Association of Physicists, which groups together 1,500
of Canada's top brains.
What does the minister have to say in reply? She received a copy
of the letter, as did the Minister of Finance, as did the Secretary of
State for Science, Research and Development, as did the Prime
Minister, as did the Minister of Industry. What reply can she give
us on this?
[English]
Ms. McLellan: Mr. Speaker, I have the greatest respect for the
opinions expressed in that letter. Let me reiterate a point I have
made before in the House. No one is suggesting the science that
was done at Tokamak was not good science. No one is suggesting
the people who have done that research are not fine scientists. That
is not the issue here.
The issue is one of the appropriate role of the federal
government. We need to consider and define that role in the context
of the fiscal situation in which we find ourselves. Unfortunately it
is not possible for the government to continue to do everything it
has done in the past. It has become necessary, perhaps cruelly
necessary, for the government to make very tough choices and to
priorize the limited funds we have available.
Therefore I return to the priorization of our energy research that I
outlined in the remarks I made a few minutes ago. We have
determined our energy R and D priorities within the federal
government: sustainable development, energy efficiency,
renewable energy sources, the science of climate change and
non-conventional hydrocarbon resources.
We also have to think about the nation. We are an energy rich
nation, unlike some others. For example, our friends, the Japanese,
have very few energy sources. Therefore it would make perfect
sense for them to pursue research into an area like fusion. They are
net importers of energy and therefore that becomes an issue of
national security for them. They want to have within their country
the means to be secure relating to energy production.
Canada is a net exporter of energy, whether it is oil, natural gas,
hydro. The province of Quebec has tremendous hydro resources. It
probably has some of the world's best research and development as
it relates to the production of hydro power. We have wind, solar
power. We have a wide variety of indigenous energy sources.
We need to do more research in relation to those energy sources.
We need to understand the impacts on the environment of the
extraction of oil, natural gas. We need to understand the effects of
the development of hydro dams on surrounding areas, communities
and indigenous peoples. We need to understand more about how we
can use energy more efficiently.
We are a large nation with a very small population base. We use
energy intensely to travel, to transport goods and people, to heat
our homes in the worst conditions of winter. We need to spend a lot
of our research efforts in relation to energy efficiency.
3507
That is what we have done. Those are the priorities we have
established based on our strengths and on our challenges. They
are not the same priorities for other countries that do not have the
wealth of energy sources that we have.
(1630 )
We have prioritized our energy research. We have thought long
and hard about it. It was not capricious nor frivolous. We have to
maximize the benefit of our limited resources for all Canadians. I
believe we have done that.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, in the wake of the catastrophic decision by the Minister of
Natural Resources, namely the closure of one of the most
outstanding of scientific projects, I would like to know whether the
minister visited the Varennes installations before making her
decision.
If not, would the minister agree, by asking the MP concerned to
organize a meeting, to make an on site visit to the tokamak
installations? Perhaps the minister is one of those people who
learns best by seeing things, and she needs to actually go there. If
she goes to the Varennes region and meets the people there, perhaps
she will change her mind.
[English]
Ms. McLellan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, based on
our previous discussions which are always most enjoyable and
vigorous, that I have not visited the facility, nor do I think it is
necessary to visit the facility to establish the federal government's
priorities in relation to energy research.
I have outlined why we have established the priorities. Those
priorities are not based on this facility or that facility. They are
based upon the energy strengths of the nation and our short to
medium term energy research needs.
I thank the hon. member for his invitation and hope that
sometime in the future-
Mr. Bergeron: If it is not closed.
Ms. McLellan: Let me just say that the decision rests in the
hands of those who stand to benefit the most: the province of
Quebec, Hydro Quebec and private sector companies.
To return to the point I made before, we cannot do all things. In
the present fiscal situation we have had to make difficult choices.
The Deputy Speaker: The member's has expired. Is there
unanimous consent to allow her to continue?
An hon. member: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
motion presented in the House today, rightfully draws attention to
the fact that the government is guilty of yet again of acting against
Quebec's interests. This time we are talking about inadequate
funding for research and development in Quebec. The current
imbalance between Quebec's demographic load and the amount of
money invested in the province is really indecent. Quebec,
representing nearly 25 per cent of Canada's population, receives a
mere pittance from federal department coffers.
By way of example, Fisheries and Oceans Canada invests only
11 or 12 per cent of its research and development budget in
Quebec. It is the same story with Transport Canada, which invests
only 17.6 per cent of its research and development money there.
We could name a host of federal departments, but I think it would
be appropriate to describe the injustice we currently face in the
riding of Verchères. I am of course talking about the forward
looking tokamak project in Varennes.
Managed by the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion in
Varennes, Quebec, this project is vital not only for the people in the
riding of Verchères, not only for Quebecers, not only for
Canadians, but for everyone in the world, in the long run.
I will explain. You know that the Canadian Centre for Magnetic
Fusion in Varennes has been trying for a number of years to
develop a new form of energy that would not negatively impact the
environment: nuclear fusion.
(1635)
Within the context of international co-operation the likes of
which probably have never been seen with countries like Japan,
Australia, China, the member countries of the European Union,
Russia, and so on, Canada is a partner, albeit it a very modest one,
in the development of this form of energy. Since all the work is
co-ordinated to avoid unnecessary duplication, each research
centre around the world works on one aspect of the research and
shares its knowledge with the others.
Canada therefore clearly benefits from international expertise in
this area and from the resultant transfer of technology.
Withdrawing from nuclear fusion research at this point may mean
missing the boat when this form of energy starts to be used. This
form of energy would come from nuclear fusion, not from the
traditional nuclear fission which produces radioactive waste
material.
For your information, let me tell you that the word ``tokamak'' is
a contraction of the Russian words for toroidal chamber, which
refers to the shape of the reactor bearing that name. But, now this
large scale and forward-looking project, full of promise of a
pollution-free future, may now disappear, at least in Canada,
because of a lack of funding and, in fact, of a lack of vision.
Indeed, following the last federal budget, the Department of
Natural Resources, which finances Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited, which in turn finances the Canadian Centre for Magnetic
Fusion, announced that after March 1997, it would no longer
finance this large scale program, cofinanced equally by Hydro--
3508
Québec, the Institut national de la recherche scientifique and, of
course, Natural Resources Canada.
This unilateral decision, without any consultation with the
interested parties in this project, sends the message that this kind of
joint project cannot work in Canada. Indeed, how can there be
partnership or concertation, when one of the parties may withdraw
at anytime, without warning, without explaining the reasons for its
withdrawal, without any consultation?
The figures involved should be kept in mind. If this decision to
put an end to the $7.2 million funding is maintained, it will not be
without consequences. New material for $11 million will never be
used. Twenty years of development and $70 million infrastructures
will be wasted. The minister was speaking earlier of an amount of
$90 million and she was crediting herself with it, but it must be
understood that the federal government provides 50 per cent of the
funding for the tokamak project. About 100 direct jobs will be lost,
over half of them being highly qualified scientific or engineering
positions, no to mention the indirect jobs generated by the
Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion.
This research centre does not operate in isolation. A study done
in October 1995 by INRS Urbanisation showed that businesses and
laboratories had developed new expertise after having been
awarded contracts with the centre. It seems that 18 small
businesses in Quebec have developed new high technology
expertise that they did not have before. They all gained greater
credibility as corporations following their co-operation with the
Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion.
Let us take one of the numerous examples of the spinoffs that
co-operation with the centre can generate. One of the small
corporations which worked with it, Technologies MPB, was
awarded a $62 million foreign contract thanks to the expertise
acquired while working on the tokamak project. This is why I find
it absurd and unreasonable to cut off the funding for such a
structural project, despite the minister's explanations that these
cuts come at a time of budgetary constraints.
I remind the House that we are discussing a project that costs the
federal government only $7.2 million, because there are other
partners. And, speaking of budget cuts, last year, the federal
government increased its funding to the TRIUMF project in British
Columbia from $19.3 million to 34.3 million, all federal money.
In Ontario this time, the federal government is maintaining the
same level of funding for the ambitious neutrino research program
in Sudbury.
(1640)
While cutting $7.2 million, in the name of fiscal restraint, from a
structuring project which is sure to create jobs and generate new
technologies, the federal government is sinking $10 million worth
of taxpayers' money in a flag waving campaign. It is going to
distribute flags and kites while cutting hundreds of jobs in Quebec.
This is an outrage.
I see the minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec. I hope he is taking note of the debate going
on here today.
It is again in Ontario that the development of the CANDU
reactor is taking place; the economic spinoffs of this project, which
would be definitely less in Quebec than in Ontario, have not yet
been established.
Fielding questions from the Bloc Quebecois, the minister first
said, in this House, that Quebec receives over 25 per cent of the
regional R and D budget. The key word in this is ``regional''. The
minister is referring to regional expenditures and, believe me, it is
extremely difficult to understand what is included in this new
accounting method the minister seems to have invented.
Having asked for explanations on numerous occasions, we
finally learned that expenditures in the national capital region
appeared nowhere. In fact, it is as if some kind of 11th zone had
been created, an 11th region, 11th province for which all
expenditures would be erased. We believe the minister is playing
with figures dangerously because her method for recording her
department's expenses shows some intellectual dishonesty and,
thereby, a total lack of respect for Canadians and Quebecers.
What is certain is that the sums allocated to R & D in Ontario are
considerably higher than those invested in R & D in Quebec. For
example, again, a 1993-1994 list of all federal research centres in
natural sciences and engineering shows that, in the National
Capital Region, there are 40 centres and 6,138 jobs in Ottawa and
its suburbs on the Ontario side. Compared to that, only two centres,
and 111 jobs, are located in Hull.
If the Department of Natural Resources reflects the rest of the
federal government, and we know it does, Quebec is definitely a
loser in the area of amounts invested on its territory.
Fortunately, we have figures that depict a reality quite different
from that of the minister. The Syndicat des professionnels
scientifiques of the Institut de recherche en énergie has shown that
only 17 per cent of the R & D budgets of Natural Resources Canada
are spent in Quebec.
If the department maintains its decision to reduce its share of
financing and finally brings the Tokamak project to a close, that
percentage will drop to 12 per cent only. If we include in these
numbers the budgets of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited,
Quebec's share goes down to 8 per cent and, without the Tokamak
project, it is reduced to 6 per cent, for a population that represents
25 per cent of the total population of Canada.
3509
After looking at these numbers, it is easy to understand why such
a wave of protest came from Quebec. All the people closely or
remotely involved in the project have shown or have tried to show
the federal government how illogical its decision was and have
expressed their frustration and their inability to understand such an
unacceptable decision from the government.
The Bloc Quebecois was the first to ask the minister, in the
House and in committee, about the reasons of her decision, which
seems unjustified to us. The Quebec government even passed a
motion unanimously on this federal decision on April 17.
We have seen the Quebec government join the Bloc Quebecois to
defend this important issue of the Tokamak project in Varennes,
and even the federal Liberal Association of Verchères riding added
its voice to ask the federal government to review this nonsensical
decision. The Quebec and Canadian scientific community, which is
generally very low-key, also protested against this absurd decision.
Besides political interventions, we have seen all kinds of groups
getting involved so the minister would reverse her decision-
(1645)
The Deputy Speaker: Your time is up. We must now move to
questions and comments.
Mr. Bergeron: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, but I hope it is not a
request to speak longer.
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I would merely need a minute to
conclude. May I ask for consent to allow me to finish my speech?
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to extend the
hon. member's speaking time?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for
allowing me to finish my speech.
Several associations, coalitions and municipalities in the riding
of Verchères also believe that the minister's decision in this case
defies logic. The scope of protests is striking. All 15 municipalities
in the Société de développment économique de la Rive-Sud
unanimously passed a resolution supporting the Canadian Centre
for Magnetic Fusion.
In Varennes, both the Corporation de développement
économique and city officials passed resolutions supporting the
tokamak project. Thinking that this sizeable support for the
continuation of the project had woken up the minister, we were
delighted to hear her undertake before the Standing Committee on
Natural Resources on May 30, to consider various options to find
new sources of funding.
But yesterday, during question period, the minister seemed to
indicate that she had not made any commitments. We could not
believe that the minister would shamelessly go back on her word.
She must be reminded of how important project tokamak is for
future generations. That is why we feel the minister must do all she
can now to correct this decision, this mistake, that her department
should never have made in the first place.
Varennes' tokamak project is one of the few major energy
development projects in Quebec to which Ottawa contributes. That
is why the federal government must reconsider, to show that it is
not totally lacking in vision as far as long term energy development
is concerned.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my colleague spoke very passionately and with solid reasoning
about the tokamak project. True, we did question the minister at the
Standing Committee on Natural Resources to try to change her
mind and make her understand that this project was very important
for both Varennes and Quebec as a whole.
When the minister talks about 25 per cent of the research and
development budget going to Quebec, she always excludes the
national capital region yet, as you know full well, most of the
research work is done in this region.
There are other very important issues relating to research and
development. I, however, realize more and more that this
centralizing government has no respect whatsoever for provincial
jurisdiction. When it can take something away from Quebec, I
would go so far as to say it takes great pleasure in doing so.
For many years, this government did not hesitate to use its
so-called power to spend, which is more like its power to get us
into a $600 billion debt. There are some alarming expenditures.
Spending $2 million to celebrate Canada Day is all fine and good
but, when jobs are being cut in regions with research and
development facilities, especially in Varennes, it is unacceptable.
The government is ignoring the Constitution and getting
involved, often despite the opposition of Quebec and the other
provinces, in areas in which it has no business. There are areas it
should never have stepped in. When the time comes to invest
money, it gets cold feet. But at other times, it is only too happy to
butt in.
Again, when the minister tells us that 25 per cent of the budget
goes to Quebec, we very often ask her to give us some figures
supporting her statement. The committee asked her to submit these
figures in writing. We never received them. I am the Bloc critic on
natural resources, and a Liberal member told me that Bloc
members' comments are imbued with poetry. I am sorry, but I now
want to produce some numbers.
3510
(1650)
In 1979, Quebec received 14.9 per cent of the federal funds
allocated for research and development. Do you know what was
Ontario's proportion? It was 53.4 per cent. I can give you the
figures for 1980, 1981 and 1982. In 1980, Quebec received 15 per
cent, compared to 53.9 per cent for Ontario. I will skip a few years,
so as not to bore you.
In 1984, 17.6 per cent was awarded to Quebec and 47.9 per cent
to Ontario. In 1988, it was 19.6 per cent for Quebec and 50.5 per
cent for Ontario. In 1990, Quebec got 18.8 per cent and Ontario
50.8 per cent. In 1991, Quebec received 20.6 per cent and Ontario
49 per cent. On average, Quebec got 18 per cent during these years,
while Ontario received 50 per cent. These are Statistics Canada
figures, catalogue No. 88,001.
We are speaking on behalf of Varennes, and I am personally
speaking on behalf of the Maurice-Lamontagne Institute, located in
my riding, in Sainte-Flavie. The institute is a very modern facility
where researchers from all over the world come to show fellow
researchers what can be done in the fishery sector. They come to
the Maurice-Lamontagne Institute to meet our researchers and to
seek their advice, and the government wants to reduce its funding.
Again, this is taking place in Quebec. Again, this is taking place in
a rural community. We have the unique opportunity of having
researchers in a rural community and the government is making
drastic cuts.
Mr. Speaker, you will agree that this is not acceptable.
Quebecers cannot understand such a measure. The government
seems to take pleasure in cutting its support to institutions which
are the pride of Quebecers, namely the Collège militaire royal de
Saint-Jean, the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion, and the
Maurice-Lamontagne Institute. If at least they were cutting
assistance rationally and spreading the cuts over four or five years
in order to help people recover, take stock of the situation and carry
on. But no. Almost overnight, they say sorry and cut assistance
everywhere. Perhaps it is true that they are cutting everywhere, but
one would be mistaken in thinking that the amount cut is fair. It is
not fair for Quebec. I just proved that, according to the figures for
the 1979-1991 period, not one year only but over a full 13 year
period, Quebec got 18.6 per cent compared to 50 per cent for
Ontario.
However, we, in Quebec, have been spoiled in some areas. We
have been spoiled with unemployment insurance that, since the
new reform, I call poverty insurance. There are no jobs yet, as
everyone knows, the contributions to this plan come from
employers and employees.
I just came from a committee meeting, where the president of the
Canadian forest producers was five minutes ago. He told me the
way the eastern plan subsidies in Quebec had been cut-and this is
the president talking-is completely unacceptable because the
forest industry in particular, an industry I know very well, is very
profitable for the government. It is profitable in two specific ways:
through taxes and income taxes collected and through the
unemployment benefits that do not have to be paid out. The
government does not have to pay for it, but we know the
government seems to get upset when someone gets unemployment
benefits, which is why it set such very harsh standards. Assistance
for the forest industry has been cut.
(1655)
Back home, in the community of Causapscal in my riding, a
forestry school opened recently and is doing very well. I was just
told that research is still carried out at that school. In Rimouski, we
had a centre on the Eastern Plan, where new technologies were
developed. Everyone came to see what was going on there and was
delighted, the owner could see how many species he had on his
property, what was going on, if the trees were mature or not, what
forestry activities he could undertake and what he could expect
over a five or six year period.
We also wanted to get involved in genetic research. As you well
know, there is a lot of genetic research needed in the forestry area.
Sometimes, more than one generation is needed before a tree can
be harvested. A lot could be accomplished through genetic
research. We started, but $6.5 million were cut overnight and we
were told that the Eastern Plan was a thing of the past.
As we know, research and development play a key role in the
economy of modern societies. Everybody knows that. Since
Confederation, Quebec has never received its fair share, never.
This year, with all the programs being cut, what little Quebec has
will again be reduced. I talked earlier about the Lamontagne
Institute. That institute stands to lose 30 per cent of its subsidies
and that is totally unacceptable. This is the only federal centre with
such a mission in the province of Quebec.
I could quote numerous studies on this issue that prove beyond
any doubt that Quebec has unfortunately been taken in, year after
year. Some people tend to believe or want the rest of Canada to
believe that Quebec is the spoiled child of Confederation. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
If Quebecers are not given the opportunity to carry out research
and development, they will come to understand that they need their
own country to do what needs to be done. Then, they will be able to
get involved in research and development and to hold their heads
up high.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: As colleagues may have noticed, the
Reform Party missed its turn in the speaking order. I wonder if
there would be a disposition to give consent to have the Reform
member speak now before the two Liberal members speak.
3511
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank my colleagues for allowing that change. I am sure their
patience is conditioned by the fact that I have not yet given my
speech. I am sure at the end of it they will have altered their
opinion.
The motion before the House today reads:
That this House condemn the federal government for its regressive research
and development policies in regard to Quebec, in particular its unilateral
decision to cut the federal contribution of $7.2 million planned for the Canadian
Centre for Magnetic Fusion in Varennes.
I am honoured to speak to this motion on behalf of my party.
This is not my usual area of specialization. I will not speak long,
but I have been asked by my colleagues from Okanagan Centre and
Fraser Valley East, who know much more about this, to speak on
their behalf.
What is the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion in Varennes?
Varennes is a very nice place on the south shore of Quebec,
northeast of Montreal. I had the pleasure of being there last
summer. It is a very nice community.
The Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion is a joint venture,
funded by Hydro Quebec, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and the
National Institute of Scientific Research. It carries out research in
the field of fusion, which hopes to provide a source of energy using
fusion of elements such as heavy hydrogen. This energy source is
readily available and would provide pollution free energy. The
problem is this technology is not commercially viable.
The project at Varennes has yet to produce energy because so far
creating the reaction uses more energy than it gives off.
Financing has been provided thus far by the federal government
and by the Quebec government. The annual provincial government
budget is about $14.4 million, where the federal portion is half of
that, $7.2 million per annum.
(1700)
The most recent promised federal funding for the project was
given in 1992 for five years. Therefore this funding has been all
along set to expire in 1997. This has been understood from the
beginning and there should be no surprise with these developments.
There was a small reduction in federal support for this project to
the tune of $2 million per annum beginning in 1994.
On a worldwide scale the amount of federal spending on the
project at Varennes amounts to about three-eights of one per cent of
worldwide spending in this area. This is an important fact to
mention because these are projects where economy of scale is very
important. There is a worldwide trend to cut much of this research.
Funding for fusion in the United States has dropped by about $100
million per annum. The European Union project is about to
undergo a review and will likely see some spending cuts.
The federal government in Canada, along with its partners, has
put in over 20 years of money into this project, about $70 million of
infrastructure money, although frankly I and my party would doubt
this equipment has held its value. I am quite sure the present value
of this is significantly lower.
The Minister of Natural Resources has slashed Varennes funding
but it is important to note this has been done along with similar cuts
in other areas, also slashing the fusion program in Mississauga. We
have seen other such cuts in western Canada. The KAON particle
accelerator has been cut. A similar project, the ITER project in
Ontario near Pickering, has not been funded, although in our view
there is a possibility of considerable international investment at no
cost to Canadians if that goes ahead.
There is in spite of this cut to funding an $11 million upgrade
now underway which can be viewed as either a complete waste of
money or a giveaway to Hydro Quebec.
The Bloc Quebecois has raised the issue of cutting funding to
Varennes is a very isolated issue. It has raised it in neither the broad
context of science and technology policy in Canada nor in the
broad context of regional fairness and regional allocation of
development and other funds in Canada.
Instead, as is repeatedly the case, the Bloc Quebecois has raised
this issue simply as a Quebec issue, pointing out that Quebec has
been cut something and therefore we are making this an issue. This
is repeatedly the role of the Bloc Quebecois in Parliament. Not that
I dismiss all these concerns but I wish they were presented in a
broader context. I think it would be much more helpful if they were
analysed in a broader context.
I think sometimes there are reaches. Earlier today Bloc members
suggest Quebec only gets its share of money if we count the
Quebec portion of the national capital region. It escapes me why
we would not count the Quebec portion of the national capital
region, but that assertion was made.
Some of these general concerns, though, about federal priorities
and how they impact the regions I think are value. Before I become
more critical let me comment on that a little. There has been a view
in the country historically, which my party has spoken about, that
the central core of the country is its industrial engine and to treat
the other regions of the country as simply markets and simply a
source of cheap resources. This has been a longstanding pattern. It
goes back to the foundation of the country and it continues at times
to be reflected in federal policy, I think with some frustration.
3512
In the Mulroney era that attitude was demonstrated in spades
when the current regional development agencies were set up. At
the time the Mulroney government had established the two major
regional agencies in Atlantic Canada and western Canada.
We took some amusement at the original alignment of those
agencies. The government announced the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency-the carefully selected word
opportuntiy-coupled at the time with the minister of public
works, a very traditional view of Atlantic Canada.
(1705 )
The western diversification initiative-keying in on the western
word diversification-was put under the minister of grains and
oilseeds at the time and funding for regional development in
Ontario and Quebec remained with Industry Canada under science
and technology. The symbolism of that spoke spades about the
government's view of the country and its economic development.
There have been a lot of problems in these kinds of projects and
these kinds of allocations. I have not seen recent analyses, but it
was stated some years ago that companies that received western
diversification initiatives were making contributions to the
Conservative Party at the rate of 85 per cent. I suppose it is
coincidental that all of the qualified companies were Conservative.
I suspect that has changed since 1993.
If we want to take a broader view of resource allocation there are
other examples where the grievances being aired by the Bloc today
do not hold up.
In recent days the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia has pointed out that CIDA gives a huge
percentage of its contracts and resources to companies based in
Quebec. Seventy per cent of the top 20 CIDA contracts went to
Quebec based firms. It also turns out that most of these firms were
making donations to the Liberal Party. This is another trend. As I
said, the government changes office and suddenly all the
competence in the country seems to change partisan stripe as well.
In 1995, 57 per cent of CIDA contracts were undertaken by Quebec
firms.
I point this out not to say these Quebec members are not making
reasonable grievances here, but I am not clear that this can be
analysed in an isolated case by case context. We all know the
airline and aerospace industry has been concentrated in Quebec
with not insignificant federal government help in that outcome
over the years.
I am not sure what the Bloc Quebecois is really suggesting with
this motion other than to point out Quebec is not getting this project
and that therefore this is injustice. I do not know what it is
suggesting the solution is. We have never heard any suggestions
from the Bloc Quebecois about a systemic solution. We have never
heard any suggestion that we would have, as was suggested by our
party, published analysis by the federal government of its regional
allocation to spending and taxation measures across various
government departments. It is simply suggesting Quebec is not
getting its fair share in this area. This is based on very specific
numbers of dollars spent in Quebec specifically by Atomic Energy
Ltd. of Canada.
Are Bloc members suggesting every province should have a
nuclear reactor or fusion facilities? I do not think this is necessarily
a realistic suggestion.
Let me make some concerns about how the Bloc is approaching
these problems which it believes to be serious. I think with proper
analysis we could reach a solution to these things. However, let us
not forget whenever we hear one of these grievances about a
Quebec project this is coming from a sovereignist party. What
exactly is it about sovereignty that would help this situation?
Let me make three concerns that I think would be raised
instantly. First, sovereignty would reduce the economies of scale of
Canada and Quebec. In economies such as these economies of scale
in major advances of scientific and commercial research are very
important. I cannot see how either Canada or Quebec would be
better off with smaller economies of scale, which would result in
these areas after separation.
Second, and I have pointed this out repeatedly, if Quebec were
not part of Canada it would have no money whatsoever in these
project areas from the federal government. It would be receiving
nothing, zero. I think that needs to be repeated.
Sovereignists are using these projects as lamp posts rather than
street lights; in other words, for support rather than enlightenment.
I suggest that if the Variance project were to be funded that would
not in any way change the inclination of the sovereignty movement
to pursue its objective. Once again, I think this is a justification
rather than a real motivation.
Finally, and I do have to ask this on behalf of my own
constituents who ask this constantly, if the Bloc Quebecois raises
concerns like this, and if it really wants to leave Canada and asserts
that it will leave and furthermore will leave without any
commitment to leave legally or without any commitment to pay its
full 25 per cent share of the national debt when it does leave, why
in the world would the federal government or other Canadian
taxpayers want to make a long term capital investment in Quebec
in any case? These are serious questions being asked in the rest of
the country.
(1710)
I conclude without dismissing the broader concerns entirely. I do
not think they are addressed by the motion and obviously the
Reform Party will not associate itself with the motion.
3513
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Madam Speaker, I have
been listening carefully to the hon. member for Calgary West, a
young man who seems quite reasonable and moderate in his
remarks. Listening to him has helped me understand how true it is
that we have two solitudes in this country, the French speaking
community in Quebec and the English speaking community in the
rest of Canada, two communities that do not understand each other.
I do not know if the hon. member is well versed in history, but if
he knew the history of his country and of mine, he would know that
Quebec and the other provinces which first founded this country
invested a lot of money in the development of Western Canada. My
colleague is from Calgary, Alberta, a province which is quite rich
today, but was poor for a long period of time. Quebec, Ontario and
other provinces invested a lot of money in the development of
western provinces. Today, Alberta is rich.
My colleague should understand that Quebecers do not in any
way resent the fact that western provinces are rich. We simply want
our share. I have here figures on research and development that
demonstrate conclusively that Quebec does not get its fair share.
Let me remind my colleague that Quebec taxpayers pay $30
billion in taxes in Ottawa annually. We should also receive some
money from Ottawa, and we do. Unfortunately, the money we
receive is for welfare, because our province is now poor. Why? Due
to the policies of the central government.
Canada is built in such a way that Ontario always gets the
biggest piece of the pie, that is, 50 per cent of the research and
development funds. Quebec has everything it needs to be as rich as
Ontario, except an English-speaking majority. I will tell my hon.
colleague that a minority that does not control its economy has to
rely on the majority.
I heard him say: ``Why, if they do not really want to separate, are
they still making claims?'' This is part of our mandate. As long as
the Bloc Quebecois is in Ottawa, we will protect Quebec's rights.
We, the 53 Bloc members, were sent here mainly to protect
Quebec's interests. And, under the British system, we formed the
official opposition.
I want to say to the hon. member that the claims we make are for
ourselves, are not directed against Western Canada at all. I think
Western Canada must also get its fair share and this is important
but when we look at the figures, we see that Quebec received only
18.6 per cent of research and development monies from 1979 to
1991.
With this, which is more a comment than a question, I am trying
to explain Quebec's history to the hon. member who may not know
it. Perhaps he knows his own province's history.
(1715)
We, in Quebec, took part in the development of Canada. What
we want now is to get back the 24 per cent we contributed and not
only social assistance and unemployment insurance. Cuts are made
there also. We want what is rightfully ours. We are here to fight for
Quebecers.
I do not have a question for my colleague but I would appreciate
his telling us what he thinks about all that.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, I believe the
hon. member has expressed an opinion. I forgot that this is an
instance, an incident, a cut that the Bloc Quebecois is taking,
without any proof, as the representation of federalism in Canada
and of the history of this country. I believe we need more than a
single incident to prove a point.
The hon. member said there are two solitudes. I take note of his
words. There are two solitudes: Quebec and the rest of Canada. The
Bloc Quebecois feels it must defend Quebec's interests against the
rest of Canada. It is a regrettable perspective, in my opinion,
because I believe there are more than two solitudes in Canada.
There are very different regions and perspectives in Canada, and
that is why the Reform Party exists in the west. I believe it is
difficult to represent the rest of Canada as only one bloc ready to
attack Quebec. I believe this sovereignist perspective is a rather
simplistic and incorrect.
We recognize that the country started in the east. I admit that the
east took part in the west's development. I do not quote the Prime
Minister often, but the Prime Minister himself said that the rest of
Canada and Quebec profit from the development of Alberta's tar
sands. It is important to recognize it.
If we talk about the development of Quebec, we must make an
analysis of the sovereignist movement's impact in this
development. If we consider the economic slow-down that
occurred, especially in the last generation, we must ask ourselves if
the sovereignist movement helped or impeded economic growth in
Quebec. I think it is obvious.
Mr. Bouchard went to the United States this week and, in order
to attract investments in Quebec, he himself felt the need to assure
Americans that he would not hold another referendum in the next
few years. If the Bloc Quebecois is truly concerned about
development problems in Quebec, the sovereignist movement is
not helping to solve this problem.
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
have a question for my colleague from Calgary West. I would like
him to put himself in my place this afternoon and imagine that he is
the hon. member for Saint-Jean, if only for one minute. I have a
concrete example for him and it is not a sovereignist example but
an economic example.
3514
Last year, the federal government decided to invest $2 billion
in armoured vehicles. It gave that money to a GM factory in
London, Ontario, saying: ``You are the Canadian centre of
excellence for armoured vehicles''.
Now, there will be a turret on the armoured vehicles and the
Canadian centre of excellence for turrets is Oerlikon, in my riding.
(1720)
I ask my colleague from Calgary what his reaction would be if he
were the member for a riding which happens to be the centre of
excellence for turrets and saw the contract given to a company
outside his riding. That is negating the existence of an international
centre of excellence. In Quebec, we foot 24 per cent of the bill but
we get only 17 per cent back.
I am talking about research and development funds. Ontario
received $2 billion because it has a centre of excellence but our
own centre of excellence, which could do its part of the contract,
was told that it will get nothing. This is a typical example. How
would the member react if he were representing a riding that was
the victim of such an injustice?
[English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak in this
debate. It is important that we focus on exactly what this is all
about.
This is not about a fair share for one part of the country or a fair
share for another part of the country. This is about governing. It is
about the Minister of Natural Resources standing up to her
obligations. It is about the Minister of Natural Resources doing her
job. It is about the Minister of Natural Resources understanding
that government is about setting priorities and acting on those
priorities. That is what this decision is about.
It has nothing to do with one part of Canada getting this and
another part of Canada getting that. This is an understanding. The
Minister of Natural Resources, in conjunction with members of
Parliament and with members of her department, have decided
what is and is not a priority in terms of R and D in Canada. They
have made hard and tough choices.
We are in a climate of fiscal restraint. We are in a time when
government has to make choices. The minister has made sound
choices. She has made good choices. She has made choices that are
in the best interests of all Canadians, regardless of where they live
from coast to coast to coast. That is what this debate is about. That
is what this decision is about. It has nothing to do with fair shares in
different parts of the country. When members opposite try to
suggest that it is, I would suggest they are wrong.
Let us look at R and D in Canada and in particular that which
comes out of NRCan. A great deal of it takes place all across
Canada, including in the province of Quebec.
For example, there is a new research and development impact
network that is going to be helping research organizations in
Quebec measure the results of R and D. The network will refine
and adapt tools for measuring the social and economic impacts of
research and promote the exchange of best practices. This will
enhance the ability of Quebec scientists and others to strengthen
their contacts across Canada and around the world.
Another example is the national topographic data base. This is a
mapping service developed by Geomatics Canada and based in
Sherbrooke, Quebec. It provides sophisticated information on such
geographical features as rivers, lakes, mountain ranges, vegetation,
cities, railroads and roads.
Another example is Canada's network of model forests. It makes
Quebec industry, non-governmental organizations and aboriginal
groups partners in the sustainable management of forests. News
about successful new techniques is shared quickly among all
partners, including those in Quebec through an extensive
information network.
There are many more examples. The government established the
Canadian Space Agency in 1989 to promote the peaceful use and
development of space for the social and economic benefit of
Canadians. In June 1993 the space agency moved to St. Hubert,
Quebec, bringing 350 high technology jobs to that province.
All of us in this House and across Canada take great pride in the
visible accomplishments of our space program and the scientists
who are in this Quebec based organization who support it.
(1725 )
This past week, we had the example of astronaut Marc Garneau
returning from outer space, a Quebecer who demonstrates clearly
that participation in this important program is from across Canada.
There are other examples. Let us turn to the mining sector.
Mining is a big and important part of northern Ontario. The natural
resource department undertakes its research across Canada,
including in Quebec.
In mining, the department administers the mine environmental
neutral drainage program, as an example. It was established in
1988. The program brings together a consortium to co-ordinate
research into ways of reducing the impact on the environment of
drainage from mining sites.
This is an important environmental concern. New methods have
been developed to neutralize the effects of acids from tailings and
waste rock. This research, which is carried out in co-operation with
20 mining companies across Canada, helps ensure that neighbour-
3515
ing properties, lakes and rivers in Quebec as well as in the rest of
Canada, can be protected.
Since 1989, a total of $1.5 million has been spent or committed
on the mine environmental neutral drainage program in Quebec by
NRCan and a further $650,000 is going to be spent in that province
in the next few years.
Another important example is research in the area of energy,
which is taking place at the energy diversification and research
laboratory in Varennes, Quebec, a joint enterprise in association
with the Institut de recherche d'Hydro Québec, Institut national de
recherche scientifique, ABB, the international engineering firm
and 20 other partners.
This facility has staff of almost 50 scientists, engineers and
technicians and has an annual budget of almost $6 million. The
mission of the laboratory is to conduct applied research into energy
efficiency, renewable energy and to do so in close co-operation
with industry.
This facility, which operates in the province of Quebec, has a
long list of achievements: the development of a high efficiency
absorption heat pump designed for small commercial buildings,
new catalytic gas combustion system with greatly enhanced
efficiency and a new study on converting the conventional diesel
system used in remote locations to a new hybrid photovoltaic wind
diesel system.
What this demonstrates to the members of this House, to people
from across Canada whether they live in Ontario, in British
Columbia or the province of Quebec, is that the minister and the
government do not make their decisions based on geography. They
do not make their decisions based on trying to make an absolutely
equation so much in, so much out. That is not how Canada
operates.
This demonstrates that the government undertakes its job, in this
case research, across Canada. It does not make its decisions based
on whether it makes sense geographically. It makes its decision
based on what it should do. Does it make sense scientifically? Is it a
Canadian priority? Is it a governmental priority given what the
science and technology of the day is? Is it a priority that we can
deal with in terms of the fiscal environment, the fiscal context
within which we are operating?
That is what the government does. That is what the minister has
done. To suggest somehow that this is a plot or some devious way
of withholding funding from a province just is not so. It is not that
at all.
I have clearly demonstrated that when we look at where we
undertake this activity. It takes place in Ontario. It takes place in
the west. It takes place in the maritimes and it takes place in
Quebec as well. That is important for the people who live
everywhere in Canada, including the people in Quebec, to
understand. The suggestion that this withdrawal of funding is some
sort of plot is simply wrong.
There are priorities today in research. Fusion research is
something that could have great returns, but that is not going to
happen for quite some time, 20 or 30 years in the future. The
minister has had to make a decision based on what our priorities are
today and based on our ability to have a return on that investment in
the short term. That was an appropriate decision for the minister to
make. It was an appropriate decision for the government to make.
(1730)
I believe all Canadians should applaud what is being done here.
We are making those tough choices that have to be made and we are
allocating those resources in the best interests of all Canadians,
regardless of where they live, from coast to coast.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, I feel
that the question I asked was an excellent one, but unfortunately
there was no time to answer it. I am therefore leaping at the
opportunity I now have to ask it again, but I shall adapt it in light of
what the hon. member from Ontario has just said.
I do indeed have the statistics here. He claims geography is not
important, that what is important is how the money is invested and
what return there is on it. I would, however, just draw his attention
to the fact that his province receives 50 per cent of all of these
research projects, and Quebec only 18.6 per cent. That is just a
coincidence. It is probably why he believes that geography is not
important.
But I will take another tack, picking up on my example from
before. There are several centres of excellence in Canada. Often the
government states that it will give contracts to these centres of
excellence. There is one such centre for armoured vehicles in
Ontario, GM in London. As I said, these vehicles need to be fitted
with a specific turret and turret gun. The other centre of excellence
in Canada is Oerlikon Aerospace, which is in Saint-Jean.
I would ask whether he considers it fair that $2 billion are being
given to the centre in London, Ontario, which decides to have its
turrets manufactured by its affiliates, which are in the U.S.
moreover, with Delco getting some $600 million, whereas the
department ought to insist the turrets be manufactured at
Saint-Jean. From the geographical point of view, then, I have
trouble understanding how such an uneven distribution can be
made.
As for expertise-and this is my question-why has the
government not awarded the turret part of the armoured vehicle
contract to Oerlikon? If the hon. member from Ontario were in my
shoes, I think he too would be offended that things were being done
this way. This is, therefore, one example related specifically to his
address, in which he states that expertise and return on investment
3516
are what count. Let him explain to us, then, why this was not the
case with Oerlikon and GM in London, and the turrets.
[English]
Mr. Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I will give a broad response to
that question.
Let us think about the model the hon. member is suggesting. We
heard about this not too long ago in the House with respect to
another matter. The hon. member is suggesting that if it makes
sense to invest money in a particular part of Canada what we would
have to do is say let us put that money there because it makes sense.
Then, because we have to worry about geographic concerns and a
claim saying it should have been somewhere else, we would have
to invest similar amounts in Quebec, in the maritimes, in British
Columbia and in the prairies simply to keep an equal balance
because there would be a concern that one part of the country was
receiving more than another part of the country. As an ex-banker I
can say it would not take long with that kind of scenario for the
country to become bankrupt.
If there is a $2 billion project in Ontario that makes sense, the
member is suggesting we would have to invest $2 billion in
Quebec, $2 billion in the maritimes and $2 billion in the west to
keep everybody happy. We would have to spend $8 billion to have a
$2 billion project.
That is not the way things will work. That is not the way they
should work. It certainly is not the way the minister is to work. It
certainly is not the way the government is to work.
I relate this to something I debated with a Bloc member in a
previous debate. Think about a family. I know the Bloc may have
difficulty with this, but Quebec is a part of the Canadian family. It
is a proud part of the Canadian family. So is Ontario and so are all
the other parts of the country. We are a family. We have been a
family for 129 years and it has worked well. It has not been without
problems, but it worked well. I am a parent and I have a number of
children. We provide resources, not necessarily equally divided,
but resources which are in the best interests of the family. We
provide resources that move us forward. We provide resources
based on the overall good of the family.
(1735)
As a government that is what we are doing. We are providing
resources in the best interests of all Canadians, making sound
economic decision, sound investment decisions, decisions which
make sense in the economic environment in which we find
ourselves and that are good for Canadians, regardless of where they
live in this great and united country.
Mr. Gordon Kirkby (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate.
I feel it is most important to put into context the decision of the
government to discontinue the funding of the national fusion
program. In program review, the most necessary examination of
priorities of all programs, the government of Canada made some
extremely difficult decisions.
As the minister mentioned, at Natural Resources Canada it was
decided to give priority to research and development in energy
which improve the efficiency of oil, gas and electricity and the
development of renewable energy technologies such as
biotechnology, solar and wind energy. Fusion does not come under
any of these priorities.
To expedite the advancement of the strategic directions decided
by NRCan the department is fostering the sharing of scientific
knowledge throughout the country and working with parties in
specific priority areas. I will provide some examples.
It uses the information highway to transfer high quality science
and technology quickly to users. NRCan is making a major
contribution to the highway by facilitating the supply and exchange
of digital data organized and retrieved by geographical location.
Such geo reference data are produced by a variety of government
and industry sources. All are based on the fundamental systems
created and maintained by the department.
NRCan works with the Government of Quebec and other
provinces to define and develop the national spatial data
infrastructure, this part of the information highway dealing with
the management and exchange of geo referenced data. Called the
geography lane, it covers all applications with significant
geographic content. The department's geo route project also
provides access to the network at the entry level for students,
researchers and businesses for anyone in Quebec or elsewhere
looking for geographical information.
The national atlas information service offers electronic samples
of national atlas products and allows users to select a theme such as
minerals, transportation or population density to create a
customized map. The atlas is available on the Internet as a
worldwide web site. The site won a gold medal at the 1995
technology in government week.
The department takes full advantage of the Internet to
disseminate information. For example, anyone may obtain
immediate access to national information regarding forest fires. A
daily fire and weather index provides data crucial to controlling
and managing forest fires in Quebec and across the country.
3517
Partners and clients now have regular access to geo scientific
data bases throughout the Internet and dedicated information
centres set up in provincial facilities. Residents of Quebec may
conduct searches, obtain reports and read public files. People are
now buying maps via the Internet.
Internationally the department is strengthening its overseas links
to create and expand markets for companies in Quebec and other
provinces to improve access to foreign technologies and
collaborate on global projects.
Canada works with other countries to develop international
standards, scientific criteria and indicators and certification
systems for global sustainable forestry. Without such certification
fostered by NRCan Quebec forest products could encounter future
trade barriers because of environmental requirements. As the
leader of Canadian geomatics teams, NRCan is playing a strategic
role in winning business abroad.
(1740)
Most of these international projects involve Quebec firms.
Under a $22 million contract Quebec based companies are
modernizing Mexico's national mapping system. The leader of this
project is SNC Lavalin. Subcontractors are Photosur-Geomat of
Montreal and Le Centre canadien de geomatique of Sherbrooke.
Another two-year contract is underway in Saudi Arabia. With
funding from the Canadian International Development Agency, the
department is working with a consortium of Canadian companies
on a digital mapping project in Russia.
Companies involved with projects in Russia include DMR
Group of Montreal, Tecsult of Montreal and Roche of Quebec.
Working in Romania are Tecsult, and Pro-Sig and Sima of
Montreal. Other overseas projects where Quebec companies are
providing leading technology are in Lebanon, Burkina Faso and
Argentina. As part of the efforts to pursue the marketing of energy
and technology abroad, the department is leading a hydro
technology mission to Poland.
NRCan keeps Canada at the forefront of geoscientific research
through active participation in the international ocean drilling
program. Canadian proposals for deployment of a drilling ship
have resulted in more than $20 million of scientific drilling
immediately offshore of Canada.
The department also provides administration for the
International Union of Surveying and Mapping, an organization
which provides a forum for exchanging science and technology
information in geomatics.
Another example is an agreement with European community for
the exchange of information on technologies in key areas of
mining, mineral processing, metals recycling, waste reduction and
related environmental issues.
Natural Resources Canada communicates the importance of
science and technology to students all across this great country of
ours. The geomatics professional development program matches
recent university graduates with potential leaders in Geomatics
Canada in a two-year program. NRCan personnel receive an
infusion of fresh ideas and innovations. The graduates gain
valuable work experience. The industry obtains graduates who
have been trained to apply the latest academic and scientific skills.
A new link of growing importance is SchoolNet, which connects
more than 15,000 schools across the country via the Internet.
NRCan provides maps, geography databases and community
profiles. Through this network a school in Jonquiere could obtain
detailed geographic information about Montreal or anywhere else
in Canada. For one project, an atlas of Canadian communities,
created in partnership with the Canadian Association of School
Principals, youngsters collected maps, photographs and stories
about their communities. These were compiled in an atlas,
packaged on a compact disc and provided through SchoolNet.
Another program, the youth science awareness program for
schools, is designed to develop interest and capabilities of youth in
science and encourage the pursuit of careers in scientific fields. A
junior energy program was aimed at children in grades four, five
and six. ``Conserving Energy in Canada'' explains this important
priority to grades seven to ten. Scientists from NRCan also serve as
part time professors at universities, providing strong links between
the department's research laboratories and students.
This is a short description of the many and varied ways Natural
Resources Canada is meeting the scientific needs of a whole range
of Canadians from each province, including Quebec society. This
includes students from primary school through university, teachers
and professors, researchers, scientists, technicians, public
administrators, business people, those engaging in mining,
forestry, energy and geo-science, public interest groups and
environmentalists.
(1745)
Natural Resources Canada is investing its limited resources to
meet the most pressing, present and future needs in science and
technology. As a science department of the federal government,
Natural Resources Canada is amply fulfilling its mandate to serve
the needs of all Canadians, ensuring the place of all Canadians in
the future and prosperity of Canada.
In view of these many ongoing programs, directly and indirectly
benefiting all Canadians, the difficult decision to end funding for
the national fusion program was appropriate, wise and entirely in
keeping with the best interests of all the people of Canada and
Quebec.
3518
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened with interest to the remarks of my Liberal colleague. He
recited a list of many things the government has done, a sort of
litany that tells us very little about percentages.
In August 1995, the Quebec department of industry, commerce,
science and technology produced a study on federal R and D
spending. The main conclusions of the study, which analysed
specific federal spending in this sector using a grid with a number
of criteria, are that between 1979 and 1991, six provinces out of ten
were overfunded in R and D.
Ontario, of course, was at the top of the list. For the last 10 years,
it has received 50 per cent of the funding. According to the study,
during the same period Quebec came last, with underfunding of
$2.5 billion, the amount it would have received if it had been
treated equitably.
This study concluded that if federal funding had been equitable
in 1991, the relationship between gross domestic spending on R
and D and GDP, the indicator most often used to show the intensity
of R and D effort, would have been higher in Quebec than in any
other Canadian province.
The question I would like to ask my colleague is this: Can
Quebec reach its full potential? In other words, by remaining in
Canada, can Quebec hope to receive its fair share? We think it
cannot. Recent history says it cannot. Quebec is not receiving its
fair share.
As I was saying earlier, what we get from the federal government
is social transfer payments. The central government has no policy
for developing a specific region, as I see it, except that if you are
part of the majority and you live in Ontario, you could care less.
They say you should go where the getting is good, and the getting is
almost always good in Ontario.
Does the member think that Quebec can hope to develop by
staying within Confederation? I think not, and I would like the
member to prove otherwise. If he cannot, this discourse that we
have been listening to for 30 years and that is slowly but surely
destroying us has got to stop.
[English]
Mr. Kirkby: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for his question which is very specific and pointed.
Today we are talking specifically about funding to a particular
project within Quebec, the magnetic fusion project. There has been
some discussion about the amount of resources going to the
province for science and technology.
(1750)
I can assure the hon. member, coming from a province like
Saskatchewan, that we are not overly financed in the area of
research and development, probably less so than the province of
Quebec. I believe this to be more than likely an accurate statement.
It strikes me as being a bit like the hon. member complaining
because he has no shoes. I am complaining because I have no feet.
The hon. member should keep all these things in perspective.
Each of these different programs goes on in different regions across
the country. Sometimes one area or another, for very legitimate
reasons, will be a larger beneficiary of specific resources.
However, after taking into account all the things the federal
government does in all parts of the country, we are all well served.
When the maritime provinces have a need, the government is
there to assist in meeting the need. As well, the people of other
provinces share in meeting that need. It is the same with the
province of Quebec. When there is a need in that province, people
from the rest of Canada are there to assist in meeting that need.
However, the people in Saskatchewan receive next to nothing in
research and development dollars.
When taking into account all of the benefits we have in being
Canadian, I am very proud to be a Canadian citizen. I am proud to
be part of a country that cares about every region, where we share
our wealth one with other so we all can benefit.
At different times in our history different provinces have had
needs. Before oil was discovered in Alberta, it needed help from
the rest of country and received that help. Now Alberta is helping
other areas of the country.
When we look back over our history all regions of the country
have needed assistance from time to time and all regions of the
country have received it. When we consider our history and all of
the difficulties and challenges that the different regions have had,
we have all been well served by Confederation. As a result of this
kind of caring, sharing and working together, I can say that I am
very proud to be a Canadian.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being 5.53
p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that proceedings on the
motion have expired.
_____________________________________________
3518
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should, in accordance with
international law, be willing to consider negotiating with any secessionist claim in
the event of a future referendum, if and only if the following criteria are met: (1)
the secessionist unit be comprised of a ``people'' meeting international standards;
3519
(2) the people must have been subject to a denial of political freedom or human
rights in a discriminatory manner; (3) the seceding unit must demonstrate in practical
terms that it has and can create a practicable and governable state which can assert
effective control over a reasonably well defined territory; (4) a clear and precise
question is asked as to whether the population in question wishes to secede from
Canada; and (5) two-thirds of the population vote in favour of the clear and precise
question.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to introduce
Motion No. 206 today. This motion would be unnecessary if the
government had had a plan to deal with the national referendum
issue that still haunts us to this day.
(1755 )
The national unity issue that we thought would be finished at the
end of last year is unfortunately in front of us once again. The
separatist leadership in Quebec continues to pursue a course and is
trying to carve up this beautiful country that we know as Canada.
The separatist politicians in Quebec are trying to seduce the
population in Quebec, to try to lead them to the holy grail of
separation.
The purpose of this motion is to put forward some terms of
secession, some identifiable groundwork for the criteria for
secession. What is patently evident from last October 30 is that the
federal government did not have a plan A or a plan B. It did not
have a plan if it was a yes vote and did not have a plan if it was a no
vote. Sadly, after discussions in the House over the last two weeks
and on questioning the government, it has repeatedly demonstrated
that it still does not have a plan as our country moves inexorably
toward the edge of a cliff of separation.
I have put forward Motion No. 206 in which I have tried to use
the criteria under international law that is commonly respected
throughout the world. The premier of Quebec has said that
international law will be respected over internal law. The Prime
Minister has said that international law will be respected. The
attorney general of Quebec has said the same thing. No one has
defined what it is in international law that allows an area to secede.
That is what Motion No. 206 is all about. It states that an area in
Canada can secede if it meets the following five criteria: (1) that
the secessionist unit be comprised of a ``people''; (2) these people
have been subject to a denial of their political freedom or human
rights in a discriminatory manner; (3) the seceding unit must
demonstrate that they can create a government; (4) that a clear and
precise question be asked; and (5) that the question be passed by a
two-thirds majority.
Those are the terms of secession. Those are the criteria which are
required if the international community is going to recognize a new
country. It is being applied all over the world. It was applied in the
case of Czechoslovakia. The Slovak Republic could not secede
from Czechoslovakia because it could not meet these criteria.
If Quebec or another part of this country wishes to secede it will
have to fulfil these five criteria also. If it does not then it will not be
recognized as a country in the international community.
I am appalled that the government chose not to make my motion
votable. Incidentally, this is the only OECD country in the world
that has non-votable private members' motions. What a waste of
time and money. It costs the taxpayer $25,000 an hour to keep this
place open, and for what? I caution the government in the future to
be democratic, give members the power to represent their people
and make these private members' motions, all of them, votable.
This motion came from the lack of desire, will and courage by
the government to demonstrate and define for the Canadian people
what it takes to secede. Does Quebec meet the five criteria that I
mentioned? Let us take a look.
Part of the criteria is that the rights of the people in Quebec have
to be abrogated. They claim that their rights have been abrogated.
They claim that somehow they became second class citizens. One
can only become a second class citizen if one allows it to happen. I
am completely fed up with the whining that takes place from the
separatist politicians and I know the members of this House are
also.
Let us take a look at the facts. Are Quebecers second class
citizens? Have the people of Quebec had their rights abrogated?
For 24 of the last 26 years the prime ministers of this country have
been Quebecers. Three out of the ten supreme court justices are
from Quebec. Quebec's separate civil code is respected by the rest
of the country. Quebec is allowed to have its own pension plan. It
has opted out of the CPP. It is tolerated by the rest of Canada.
(1800)
Let us take a look at the cold, hard economics. Members of the
Bloc have said that the people of Quebec have not received their
fair share. Let us look at the facts.
Since 1972 the province of Quebec has received $2.6 billion, at
least, in excess of what it has paid out. From 1961 to 1991 the
province of Quebec has received net transfers of $160 billion,
funded by the rest of Canada. It is funded by the same part of
Canada the separatists believe they are being abused by and treated
as second class citizens. If that is being treated as a second class
citizen, count British Columbia in.
3520
Firms have been encouraged to operate in Quebec. Eighty-five
thousand people in Quebec work in federal government jobs. A
further 25,000 work in Ontario. Is that second class citizenship?
Is that having their rights abused? I challenge anybody to name
another country in the world where the people are supposedly
having their rights abused because they receive economic and
constitutional benefits. Those are the facts that Quebec has had
to endure.
I ask the separatist politicians who keep complaining about their
lot in life as a part of Canada to put themselves in the shoes of those
living outside Quebec. They should put themselves in the shoes of
the people who live in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba, Ontario or Newfoundland. How do they feel about
having to give their tax dollars to Quebec? That is a measure of
tolerance. What we have seen in this whole debate is a measure of
great intolerance. If we demonstrate that, this country will surely
fracture.
What has been the response of the separatist politicians in
Quebec? What did they do after the referendum? They blamed their
defeat on the immigrants. They closed down hospitals in the
immigrant populated areas of Montreal. That was not by accident;
it was done deliberately to drive out the immigrant population that
voted for a united Canada. That is absolutely disgusting.
Imagine a bill similar to Bill 101 being implemented in Ontario
or in British Columbia. The people of Quebec and in fact
non-English speaking people would be absolutely furious, and
rightly so. It is discrimination.
That has been the response of the separatist politicians in Quebec
to the non-francophones in that province. Is that care and
consideration? Is that showing tolerance? Is that showing
understanding? Is that trying to build a united country that is fair to
all its members? I think not.
I presented Motion No. 206 because of the muddled,
unco-ordinated approach made prior to the referendum by the
federal government. Its lack of understanding continues to spiral on
the national unity issue. I want to add an element of understanding
and define the rules of the terrible game we are playing.
What must we do to keep Canada together? The first thing is the
Prime Minister has to understand that the separatist leadership has
no interest whatsoever in being a part of Canada. The separatist
leadership wants only one thing: a separate country called Quebec.
If we recognize that, then we also have to accept the fact that
negotiating with the separatists will not keep this country together.
The Prime Minister can stand on his head and spit distinctive
society clauses all he wants but it will not keep Canada together
because the separatist politicians do not want to be in Canada.
(1805)
What must the Prime Minister do? He has to go directly to the
people with a plan for a new federalism. He has to build bridges of
tolerance and understanding between the people of Quebec, not the
politicians, and the rest of Canada. He has to build bridges of
tolerance and understanding between Quebecers themselves.
A few weeks ago I was in Montreal for a national unity rally and
I was shocked, saddened and appalled. There is a polarization
between the yes and the no sides. These individuals are reacting
violently toward each other. Bridges of understanding are not
developing.
The Prime Minister must go into Quebec with all members of
Parliament who want to keep the country together and bring forth a
plan for a new federalism. It must involve a decentralization of
powers to the provinces including Quebec. By decentralization I do
not mean making a weak federal government, but being intelligent
about it. Powers should be given to all the provinces in areas that
they can manage more efficiently and cost effectively. We should
keep within the federal government in Ottawa the powers that a
strong federal government can manage better. That is for the sake
of all Canadians.
The Prime Minister has to dispel the myths which have
developed between the separatists and people in the rest of Canada.
In the last referendum half of the people who voted yes believed
they would still have Canadian passports. They believed they could
send members of Parliament to this House. They believed they
could use the Canadian dollar. They believed they would be part of
NAFTA and that business would continue as usual. That is a
complete distortion of the truth.
In Mr. Bouchard's speech on television on October 26 he
stressed in English that the vote was about sovereignty and the rest
of Canada must be prepared to recognize the results. In French he
emphasized that the offer of political and economic partnership be
made to the rest of Canada. Those are two very different ideas on
the same very important topic. This has to be dispelled. The Prime
Minister must outline very clearly to the people of Quebec what
separation means and dispel the myths coming forth from the
separatist politicians.
Mr. Bouchard likes to say that the economic situation in Quebec
is going to be better than it is currently with Quebec as part of
Canada. That is simply not true. Before the referendum his own
financial analyst said that in the event of separation the people of
Quebec would suffer dire economic and social consequences. That
information was deliberately suppressed by the separatist
leadership in Quebec. The Prime Minister must explain in no
uncertain terms to the people of Quebec the consequences of
separation.
The premier of Quebec likes to say that the people in an
independent Quebec would enjoy a situation such as exists in
Europe under the Maastricht treaty. The fact is the Maastricht
treaty would provide Quebec with less monetary and fiscal control
3521
than what it has today. In fact, I cannot see an independent Quebec
taking its monetary and fiscal orders from Ottawa but that is
exactly what a Maastricht treaty would provide for a separate
Quebec.
(1810 )
I fear if the national unity issue is left up to the politicians,
Canada is going to fracture. The Prime Minister has muddled
through this issue. He is not prepared to lay it on the line, not only
to the people in Quebec but also to the rest of Canada. If he believes
he can muddle through this, if that is what his advisers are telling
him, he is dead wrong because this country will fracture.
The Prime Minister must deal with the people and work with all
other politicians in this House. He must go into the trenches. He
cannot stay in Montreal and Quebec City and deal with the
separatist media there and expect to get his message across. He has
to go eyeball to eyeball, flesh and blood, right into the rural areas of
Quebec. He must meet with the people, understand their concerns
and get the good ideas from Quebecers. He must address their
concerns and their needs to preserve their beautiful language which
is an integral and important part of the Canada we all know and
love.
It is important to preserve Quebec's distinctiveness and culture.
If the Prime Minister gives the responsibilities of language and
culture to the province of Quebec, then Quebecers are going to be
the masters of their own cultural and linguistic destinies. Whether
their language and culture survive will be entirely up to them.
Personally, I deeply hope they do because they enrich all of us.
The Prime Minister must also understand that if he is going to
put forth ideas that are somehow unequal and are only for the
people of Quebec and not for other Canadians, he faces the risk of
having other areas in Canada fracture and separate.
British Columbians are absolutely fed up with pandering to
Quebec. They want equality for all people. They want Quebec to
stay in Canada because from the bottom of their hearts they believe
that the culture, language and contributions Quebec and Quebecers
have made are invaluable to the definition of our country. Quebec's
beautiful language and culture enriches us all.
British Columbians do not want Quebec to stay in Canada as a
group with special privileges and special laws and regulations that
the rest of Canada does not enjoy. One of the problems we see in
the world is that any time one group is given special privileges over
another, disunity rather than unity is created.
The Prime Minister will have to show a great deal of
statesmanship if he is going to keep this country together. It could
be his legacy if he is effective in doing that. He must put a plan
together on the national unity issue. I encourage him to look at the
Reform 20-20 plan which has a plan A and a plan B. It has a
sensible plan on the devolution of powers from the federal
government and the separation of powers for all the provinces.
We need to bring Canadians together. We are standing at a
crossroads. The Prime Minister must lay down the guidelines for
secession. I hope he uses this motion to define the terms of
secession for the people in Quebec and outside Quebec. He must
state the consequences of secession for all Canadians. He must
include all MPs in this House. He must define and describe a new
federalism. He must dissipate the intolerance that is taking place
within Quebec. Mark my words. The intolerance that is brewing
now is going to ultimately boil over in violence. That is not
Canadian. If he does not realize it, I challenge him to go back on
the streets and find out.
I challenge people across the country, inside and outside Quebec,
francophone and anglophone, to put themselves in their
neighbour's shoes and understand where they come from. Together
and united, we will build a stronger future for all of us. We must
use our differences with respect and understanding to build a
stronger country for all of us.
(1815 )
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, Motion No.
206 proposes that in the opinion of the House the government
should establish conditions for secession.
The government has been persuaded that the hon. member
introduced this motion with the best of intentions. The prospect of
Quebec's separation, while not imminent, is certainly real.
However, when he refers to the concept of distinct society as
special privileges and refers to violence we fear that he shows the
Reform Party's lack of understanding of the issue.
[Translation]
This past October 30, a majority of Quebecers said ``no'' to
separation. Some of us hope that Canadians will not be confronted
with the spectre of the secession of Quebec. Unfortunately, the
Bloc Quebecois and its secessionist allies are the ones who refuse
to recognize Quebecers' wishes.
Last month, Premier Bouchard stated in the National Assembly:
``If Canada rejects our outstretched hand, if Canada wants to
impose vetoes on us, wants to keep us within Confederation against
our will, we will withdraw by proclaiming sovereignty unilaterally.
We have the right to do so, and we are going to exercise that right''.
Premier Bouchard did us a favour when he made that statement
because he made his true intentions very clear. We must take Mr.
3522
Bouchard at his word. The Government of Quebec has matched this
statement with legal action.
[English]
Premier Bouchard did us all a favour when he made that
statement because he made his true intentions very clear. We must
take Mr. Bouchard at his word. The Government of Quebec has
matched those words with legal action.
Quebecer Guy Bertrand is a founding member of the PQ. Mr.
Bertrand says he became convinced of the tolerance of Canada and
the benefits for Quebecers within Confederation when he realized
Canada would allow a separatist party to sit in the House as the
loyal opposition. So convinced was he that he decided to take the
Government of Quebec to court.
Mr. Bertrand hopes to force the provincial government to
explain to Quebecers how Quebec could be taken out of Canada
with only a magic wand and to expose this charade for what it is.
The Government of Quebec is trying to have Mr. Bertrand's case
dismissed.
The provincial government told the Quebec Superior Court that
the Constitution of Canada would not apply if Quebec seceded.
Canadian courts would have no jurisdiction. That is an
extraordinary statement coming from the government of a
Canadian province.
Consequently the government understands some of the thinking
and shares some of the concerns expressed on these issues in the
House and elsewhere. It understands why the member for
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca drafted the motion we are debating
today.
However, while the federal government understands and is
facing these challenges it is at the same time committed to acting in
the best interests of all Canadians.
[Translation]
The Government of Canada has made its position very clear. In
the throne speech in February, we renewed before Parliament our
commitment to rise to the challenge of Quebec secession resolutely
and with renewed energy and commitment.
First and foremost, the government has put into place a true
program of reform, a program that will be ongoing. Certain
measures have, in fact, already been presented by the government
and debated in this House, including the distinct society resolution,
the regional veto, and the transfer of manpower training to the
provinces.
However, given the long term objectives of Premier Bouchard,
the federal government also promised that: ``-as long as the
prospect of another Quebec referendum exists, the Government
will exercise its responsibility to ensure that the debate is
conducted with all the facts on the table, that the rules of the
process are fair, that the consequences are clear, and Canadians, no
matter where they live, will have their say in the future of their
country''.
[English]
The federal government has shown its resolve in response to a
reply to the motion filed by the PQ government in the Bertrand
case.
(1820)
Let me restate what the federal position is not. The federal
government does not agree with Mr. Bertrand on many things. The
federal government does not wish to interfere with the capacity of
the provincial Government of Quebec to call a consultative
referendum on any subject, including separation. The Minister of
Justice and other have been very clear on this matter before the
House and Canadians.
However, before the results of any referendum were used by a
secessionist government as a political mandate to leave Canada, at
a minimum the federal government would insist the question be
clear and the consequences explained to voters. All participants in
the debate among Quebecers would have to understand the
fundamental consequences of their actions.
Were this mandate ever achieved, Quebec would not have a right
to secede unilaterally. There is simply no legal foundation for this
under either Canadian or international law. This is not new or a
surprise. Quebec's own commissions and inquiries have been
consistently told the same thing many times.
Some would argue so what, how can the law keep people in
Canada? If the people speak, if the people choose, what is the law if
not the will of the people? Would not a law seeking to deny people
this fundamental right somehow be anti-democratic? That line of
reasoning is deeply flawed. The rule of law is not an obstacle to
change but provides a framework for change.
The rule of law would allow secession to take place in an orderly
fashion and to preserve important protections for all. If we begin as
governments or citizens to discard the rule of law what remains
would be chaos where we make up the rules as we go along, where
we set aside protections in the law, where at best we would enter
into an unknown, and that is not what Canadians want and not
action the federal government, any federal government, would ever
support.
[Translation]
Canada cannot remain united if some of us say clearly, in
response to a clear and fair question, that we want to leave Canada.
After all, Canada is built on values of compromise and tolerance
promoting our national identity.
Since 1867, we have shared the burdens and the joys of
nationhood. We have gathered together the fruits of this country,
which many describe as the best in the world.
3523
In this same vein of tolerance and compromise, however,
Canadians would insist that any secession would have to be by
negotiation and not unilateral. This is the objection of the federal
government and many Canadians to the route chosen to date by
Mr. Bouchard and other secessionists.
Canada can be divided. It is certainly no prison. No one is forced
to remain a Canadian or in Canada, but, at the same time, no one
should have their rights denied arbitrarily, without due process of
law. If Quebec were ever to secede, 30 million Canadians would
expect, and no one would demand, that the governments would
move beyond their differences, find a common ground and
continue to create an environment favourable to all.
[English]
The hon. member's motion touches on some of these themes. It
may even use the federal government's statements to date as
inspiration, but Reform would go further and faster than the federal
government chooses. The federal government has made its
approach clear and it stands by those decisions.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ):
Madam Speaker, before speaking directly to Motion M-206, I
would like to set the record straight regarding an aberration often
heard in this House. It originates with the member who moved
Motion M-206, the member for Esquimalt-Juan-de-Fuca. He said
something to the effect that nearly only in Canada, a beautiful and
democratic country, are sovereignist groups allowed to have a say.
(1825)
I would like to remind him, just in case he does not know, that in
Belgium there is a right wing Flemish party, called Vlaams Blok,
which promotes independence for Flanders. Out of 150 members
sitting in Parliament, 11 advocate independence. In Italy, the
Northern League has sent separatists members to the Parliament.
They number 59 out of 630. In Spain, there are three separatist
sovereignist parties. Taiwan and the United Kingdom also have
sovereignist parties. Canada is not the only country where this is
allowed. This is democracy.
If there is something totally undemocratic, it is Motion M-206.
If you were to ask me to describe this motion in a few words, I
would tell you that it is useless, it lacks intellectual rigour and is
provocative.
It is useless, because when you read it, you see it has only one
purpose, namely to impose the will of the majority, not of
Quebecers, but of Canadians, on Quebecers. This is not the first
time we have said this, and I will say it again very calmly, Quebec
sovereignty will be decided by Quebecers alone, not by English
Canada, not by the rest of Canada. Quebecers will decide.
This motion does not make any sense, especially when
everybody uses the expression the ``people'' of Quebec. Even the
Prime Minister, last week, answering a question I had put to him,
used the expression the ``people'' of Quebec. Everyone in this
House, except perhaps for a few Reformers and a few Liberals
sitting in front of me but who would probably feel more
comfortable sitting beside me with Reform members, recognize
that Quebecers are a people.
It is obvious that the secessionist unit is comprised of a people
meeting international standards, as stated in the motion, but it is
also obvious that Quebecers are a people. So this motion is
unnecessary in that regard.
This motion lists five criteria, and I will go over each of them.
The first criterion is that the unit be recognized as a people. This is
unnecessary, as everyone in this House recognizes that we
Quebecers are a people. We also showed in the last referendum that
we were a responsible people, since we proposed the term
``partnership'', which is very fashionable these days in the House.
I am not saying that we invented it, but I think it was the first
time the term ``partnership'' was used in this House. The Minister
of Finance and the Prime Minister then turned around and used it at
every opportunity. All this to tell you that we are a responsible
people and that we have already proposed a few things.
The motion says that the government should consider
negotiating with any claim. Again, this is unnecessary because, if
the hon. member had followed the referendum campaign a little
more closely, he would have seen that this is in the standards, in the
concrete measures proposed by the Bloc Quebecois, the Parti
Quebecois and all the sovereignists in Quebec. They propose that
some things be negotiated to benefit Quebec, of course, but also the
rest of Canada. There are major issues to be negotiated.
The third criterion in this motion is also quite ludicrous and
unnecessary. I think this motion is wasting the very valuable time
of the House. I would also say that, on the basis of the points I
raised earlier, this motion lacks intellectual rigour. Indeed, this
motion addresses several issues, including democratic rights and
international law.
This motion makes a grab for powers vested in legislative
assemblies, as-and I think the hon. member did not make any
secret about this-its sole purpose is to prevent Quebecers from
voting again on their future, or at least to try to put up roadblocks
by imposing an endless selection process. All this just for Quebec,
to grab powers belonging to the Quebec National Assembly, among
others, to try to subvert set rules and to interfere with the political
judgment of a people.
3524
(1830)
I think that these are extremely important criteria and that trying
to legislate and put them down on paper results in the kind of
nonsense we have here in Motion M-206.
I also smiled when I read the second point, which says that ``the
people must have been subject to a denial of political freedom or
human rights in a discriminatory manner''.
If I am not mistaken, until there is evidence to the contrary,
Canada is a democratic country. I think that everyone agrees to say
this is one of our finest values, to which the people of Quebec,
Ontario and the other provinces have all contributed. Correct me if
I am wrong, but it is the democratic people of Quebec who will
achieve sovereignty and, similarly, it is the democratic people of
the rest of Canada who will negotiate a partnership with the
newly-formed country called Quebec.
It is also to lack intellectual rigour to try, through a motion, to
interfere with the judgment passed on the wording of the
referendum question. I am referring to here to item 4 of the motion,
which states: ``a clear and precise question is asked as to whether
the population in question wishes to secede from Canada''.
If anything was made clear in the last referendum, this was it.
The issue of sovereignty has been discussed extensively, and not
just since 1995. I can remember, when I was elected in 1993,
making speeches on sovereignty and promoting Quebec's
independence; that was part of my mandate. Come on, this is really
to ascribe to us intentions we do not have.
The question will be clear. In fact, it was clear. But the important
thing is that it is not up to the federal Parliament, to the Ontario
Legislative Assembly, or to other provincial legislature to phrase
the question. It is up to the Quebec National Assembly, as in the
case of Newfoundland. Indeed, referendums are not held only in
Quebec. Over the years, some also took place in other provinces.
Never did the federal government, or a provincial government,
interfere in the process.
In 1948, Newfoundland joined Confederation with 52.34 per
cent of voters supporting the idea. Did anyone claim it was not
enough? If we can join Canada with 52.34 per cent of voters
supporting the idea, we can certainly leave it with the same
number. The Avalon peninsula said no to Confederation in a
proportion of 67.18 per cent, but eventually joined it. There was no
talk of partitioning.
As you can see, this motion lacks intellectual rigour, to say the
least. More importantly, it is pure provocation. To say that 66.6 per
cent of the population must vote in favour of sovereignty is to
provoke Quebecers. In the last federal election, some members in
this House got elected with barely 35 per cent of the votes. Do we
question their legitimate right to represent their riding? No,
because this is democracy.
When democracy speaks, there is not a parliament, an MP, or a
constitution that can oppose the will of the people. This is what
democracy is all about.
Motion M-206 goes squarely against this principle. Fortunately,
it is not a votable item and we will not see how many Reform
members, and perhaps Liberals members, would have been
tempted to support it. We would have voted strongly against the
motion.
[English]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I had a prepared
speech, but after listening to the member for Esquimalt-Juan du
Fuca I think I had better throw half of it away because I want to
address several of the points he touched on.
I tried desperately during his presentation to extract the positive
elements of his intervention.
(1835 )
If we are to solve the Canadian unity problem, it will not be by
adopting such a motion. It will be by having dialogue. I would like
to have a dialogue with the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.
One positive element of his speech, despite the Reform Party's
lack of understanding of Quebec's needs and problems, was the
language the distinctive culture in Quebec. He touched on the
valuable contribution that Quebecers have made to the creation of
this country. However, I still have serious doubts because when it
came time for the Reform Party to recognize that great language
and culture that make Canada unique and the efforts of Prime
Minister in response to the passionate plea we made on October 27,
the member and his party voted against the government's efforts to
recognize Quebec's distinct society and the regional veto.
We are on a dangerous treadmill. This is what I want to point out
to the member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca. When he uses words
like intolerance and violence they preoccupy me immensely. The
member from the Bloc Quebecois implied the motion is
provocative and may induce violence, that is exactly what I fear.
The member also said his province is fed up with pandering to
Quebec, again another form of intolerance, another form of
showing we are not open to dialogue.
Prior to the referendum premiers were begging Quebecers
passionately, saying ``we will work hand in hand with you, your
aspirations and concerns are our concerns''. However, the member
today measured his province by how much we benefit in economic
terms from the federation and how Quebec is being pandered to and
how people are fed up with always responding to Quebec's
demands.
3525
I remind the hon. member we made concessions to
accommodate provinces when they joined Confederation. We
made a concession for his province of British Columbia. We
promised British Columbians: ``Join our family and we will build
you a national railway''. That dream was realized in 1892,
contributed to by the many immigrants who came to this country
to help build that dream.
I ask the hon. member where would British Columbians be if
that national dream had not been realized. Would the prosperity the
province realizes today have been realized? I doubt it.
We made concessions for P.E.I., the smallest province of
Confederation. We said: ``Join our family and we will make sure
you are represented in the House of Commons and the Senate and
we will build you a fixed link''. Quebecers paid for that national
railway and for the fixed link. Quebecers did not say ``where is our
fair share''?
I am disappointed the member is not here. I believe if we are to
solve the Canadian unity problem we must show respect for each
other and have dialogue and understanding. I ask Reform Party
members, who are now suddenly showing up in Quebec, being
political opportunists, receiving petitions in my riding and other
ridings, that if they are sincere why were they not involved in the
unity debate during the entire referendum? Where were they?
They talk about their 20-20 vision. I think this motion is
unfounded, very dangerous and very intimidating.
(1840)
[Translation]
Therefore, our government supports co-operation with the
provinces and all our partners in order to develop new approaches
and find constructive solutions.
The Government of Canada does not intend in the slightest to
promote confrontation, as is suggested in this motion, because it
could undermine the renewal of federalism and especially our
social harmony.
We want to unite Canadians, not divide them. We have launched
a process of national reconciliation and federation renewal. We
have taken some concrete measures by implementing initiatives to
restore the balance within our federation, to reinforce our economic
union and enhance our social solidarity and to further define the
devolution of powers, just like the hon. member himself wanted us
to do.
Canadians outside Quebec are open-minded and try to draw
closer to their fellow citizens in Quebec, by recognizing that their
differences are what makes our country's strength. If we work
together to ensure our federation goes forward and meets the
expectations of Canadians, we will have reached our goal without
having to hold another referendum on secession.
We believe we can work constructively with the Government of
Quebec, given the open-mindedness shown by Premier Lucien
Bouchard, as we do with all the other provincial and territorial
governments. It is our duty, our responsibility.
The next first ministers conference will deal with restoring the
balance within our federation. It will give the federal and
provincial governments the opportunity to discuss the priorities
Canadians want us to set. This is why the motion put forward by the
hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca seems inconsistent with
our government's action plan. And this is why I do not support this
motion and I urge my colleagues not to support it either.
Mr. Bernard Patry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, Motion M-206 brought forward today by my colleague
from Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca says that the government should
establish beforehand five specific conditions with regard to any
secessionist claim.
I can understand why this motion is being debated. I can even
say that, in a sense, I agree with my colleague from
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca that the unilateral secession of any
province is totally unacceptable.
Let me remind the House that the government was quite clear on
that. We went to court to defend the rule of law. The federal
government's intervention before the Cour supérieure du Québec is
the direct result of the motion presented by the Government of
Quebec. It claims that the secession of Quebec does not fall within
the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts or the Constitution and that
it is solely a matter of international law.
The matter is now before the courts and a ruling will be made at
the appropriate time. In the meantime, we are concentrating, as we
have always done, on issues of interest to all Canadians, namely the
economy, employment, growth, the renewal of the federation,
equality, social justice as well as national reconciliation, which the
Reform Party obviously has no interest in.
Far from creating an environment favourable to national
reconciliation, the positions adopted recently by members of the
third party underline the fundamental issues that divide them.
When did our colleagues from the Reform Party contribute to the
debate with positive arguments, constructive solutions? Instead,
they seem to be on the path of division and confrontation.
While conditions for secession seem to be ``the'' main concern
of Reform members, our government has clearly indicated its
priorities in the throne speech. We are focusing our efforts on
positive action that will prepare Canada for the challenges of the
new millenium.
3526
Economic prosperity, employment, equality, social justice and
national reconciliation, these are the issues of concern to
Canadians. These are also the priorities established by our
government.
(1845)
During the first half of its mandate, the government took some
measures to set economic and budgetary conditions that would
foster sustained growth and job creation. It undertook a major
administrative reform, reduced the deficit, and took some trade and
international investment initiatives.
It is in this context that, since it assumed power, our government
has created more than half a million jobs and reduced the
unemployment rate by two points, so that, for the first time in five
years, it is under 10 per cent.
Thus, our government has made major changes in the past two
years and it continues to put forward the measures announced in the
throne speech to improve the workings of the Canadian federation.
In this regard, let me remind the hon. member of the initiatives on
which our government is focusing.
First of all, our government promised to limit its spending power
in exclusively provincial areas. Never before has the federal
government offered to limit its powers outside formal
constitutional negotiations.
Moreover, at the request of its provincial counterparts, the
government says that it will not create any shared cost program in
sectors under provincial jurisdiction, without the agreement of a
majority of provinces. Non participating provinces implementing
such a program will be compensated. We believe that, with such
co-operation and openness, we will promote Canadian unity.
Secondly, our government is determined to find new avenues for
cooperation with provinces to maintain national standards in social
programs without imposing conditions and without unilateral
implementation. It must be reminded that our social programs
guarantee all Canadians access to comparable levels of service no
matter where they live. That is what our government's commitment
to social solidarity means.
Thirdly, the government took the commitment to define more
clearly the responsibilities of the different levels of government.
This is done in cooperation with the provinces. We began
withdrawing from areas which are more directly the responsibility
of the provinces, municipalities and other stakeholders.
In this regard, the proposal put forward last week by our
colleague, the human resources development minister, is a concrete
example of the fulfilment of a major commitment for our
government and for most of the provinces, which had been seeking
increased authority over manpower training for a long time. The
announcement also signals a new co-operation between both levels
of government in the area of manpower training.
Therefore, provinces, if they wish, will be able to have their own
programs of employment measures, such as wage subsidies,
income supplements, job creation partnerships as well as
manpower services such as employment counselling and job
placement.
This is a practical example of the ability of federalism to adjust
to the claims of its various partners and to the regional needs in the
best interests of Canadians everywhere in Canada. We are also
continuing with our plans to withdraw from a number of other
activities, such as forestry, mining and recreation.
Fourth, the federal government will continue to promote
economic union. In order to ensure greater protection for individual
and common interests, our government has undertaken to work in
concert with the provinces, in order to reduce obstacles to internal
trade and manpower mobility. We are also proposing to create, in
co-operation with the interested provinces, a Canadian Securities
Commission that will facilitate the circulation of capital.
Fifth, the federal government is in favour of including in the
Canadian Constitution a regional veto and recognition of the
distinct identity of Quebec.
Finally, on the question of conditions of secession, which seem
to be the Reform Party's main preoccupation, the government has
indicated that it would ensure that the rules regarding the question
and the consequences of secession are clear for everyone, which
was obviously not the case in the referendum last October 30.
I would like to remind the House that the next first ministers'
conference is part of that process for the modernization of the
federation. That meeting will be the perfect opportunity to examine
ways to improve the workings of our federation and to bring about
the changes that all Canadians want.
Here is how our government intends to revitalize the Canadian
federation: by proposing some positive answers to the concerns of
Canadians, in an atmosphere of co-operation, dialogue and respect.
This is also how we should, and we will, implement a more
harmonious federation based on a larger consensus.
Therefore, we ask the Reform Party to join in with the federal
government, in order that we may work constructively towards the
renewal of the federation, as all Canadians want us to do.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hour
provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has
now expired. This item is dropped from the Order Paper.
The House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.51 p.m.).