René Canuel

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a short question and a small comment. Can my colleague from the Reform Party tell us why his party, which has so much to say about the law and financial matters, which has so many principles on paper, introduced this debate today, unless, as my colleagues across the way have so eloquently said, it was simply for the purpose of indulging in petty politics, or wasting the time of the entire House? I hope that he will give an honest answer to this question.

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is getting it all mixed up. I do not understand. When we become a country, we do it democratically. We have people vote. We all presented the referendum honestly. If there were another, we would present it to everyone too. And if people chose to do so at that point, we would become a country.

A contract is another matter altogether. A contract is signed between two companies. At that point the contract is signed. When I look back to 1867, when Canada became a country, the provinces were very powerful. Over the years, all their powers have essentially been picked off. We are left with basically nothing.

It is true that over the past 60 years, we have had Maurice Duplessis, who spoke of provincial autonomy and went and got income tax; Jean Lesage, who spoke of "maîtres chez nous" and wanted almost sovereignty; and Daniel Johnson senior, who wanted equality or independence.

It is just crazy to compare two contracts duly signed by two companies, Hydro-Churchill and Hydro-Quebec, with the desire of a people to become sovereign through a democratic vote of all citizens duly recognized in Quebec, regardless of their colour or language. We are very open to these people. We have told all ethnic groups that they are very welcome in Quebec, that they have the right to vote against or for sovereignty. This is no contract, this is the process of setting up a country, because, at the outset-I am providing a little historical background for my colleague, because his knowledge seems to be a bit lacking-at the outset in Canada, there were two peoples, two equal peoples.

At one point, we lost much of our powers, and not only the sovereignists now want them back.

A few minutes ago, I mentioned Jean Lesage. He sat in this House and had a high regard for Canada's Parliament; he spoke of "Maîtres chez nous", saying that to assume our powers, we had to get them back. While he did not manage it, he did make significant progress. I readily admit that. I congratulate the Liberals of that period. René Lévesque was a member of cabinet and it was he who was responsible for setting up Hydro-Quebec. The Liberals did a huge job.

I will conclude by saying that apples and oranges should not be mixed and that the Reformers, unfortunately, have been doing so for the past while. They have a talent for getting everything all mixed up.

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague. This contract, which runs until the year 2041, was signed after a great deal of reflection. If we become sovereign, this contract and others will be maintained. In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that this contract was valid. When we went back in 1988, the original ruling was upheld. In such a case, I think an agreement should be honoured. It would be really easy for us to establish the legitimacy of these contracts.

Agreements with other countries would be maintained. In the case of NAFTA or the GATT agreement, the international courts would recognize our new country's sovereignty and tell us that we are right and that the agreements are valid.

There is no problem with that and the people of Quebec understand that, if over 49 per cent of them voted in favour of sovereignty, it is because these laws are and always will be respected. We are going to make that demand.

There should be no attempt to frighten people by saying that this or that contract would be cancelled the day after sovereignty is achieved. This is not what happened in other countries that have become sovereign and this is not what will happen in our case.

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, why is this motion being put forward today? Why waste the time of this House again when we have already wasted two consecutive days this week? The motion reads as follows:

That this House condemn the government for its neglect of Labrador, and for refusing to resolve the injustice of the Churchill Falls Hydro Contract-

And so on. The motion talks about injustice. But as far as I am concerned, the Reformers do not know the meaning of the word "injustice". In a moment, I will give them a brief history of these contracts which, as my hon. colleague from Newfoundland said earlier, were entered into in good faith.

Why is this motion before the House today? It is a matter of political expediency for the Reform Party, and that is cheap. You all know as well as I do that a number of byelections are coming up. Had they not been motivated by these byelections, I hope that they would have chosen a different topic for this opposition day.

You know that the unemployed are worried. In my riding, 5,000 of the 6,500 residents of a small town took to the streets. Not all demonstrators were from Amqui of course. Some of them came from outside of town to show support.

We are going to debate this motion here, while jobless people are in the street. Nice doing. Even at the political level, I am sure that putting this motion before the House and condemning this government will not do much to help the people of Labrador. When I first came to this House, two years or two and a half years ago, it thought that the Liberal government was extremely centralizing and was under the impression that the Reform Party was a tad more understanding toward the provinces.

Today, I realize that the Reformers are worse than the Liberals. They are in fact asking the government to meddle in the provinces' affairs on the pretext of resolving an injustice. I should remind the hon. member from the Reform Party that his party's position is to

the effect that the provinces should enter into agreements between themselves and increase interprovincial trade as much as possible.

Here is what a document, released by that party in January 1996, says: The Reform Party's vision of a new Confederation is that of a Canada in full expansion, that of a stronger and more creative country-how nice-which is as rich, as prosperous and as varied as our land. Our vision rejects the overcentralization of powers in the hands of a few, while insisting on the numerous benefits of a more equitable distribution of powers everywhere in the country and to the provinces.

Does the hon. member not agree with his party's proposals? Is he telling us that his party's vision is only for election purposes, and that if the Reform Party ever becomes the government, which would be a tragedy, it would be much more centralizing than the current government? And Heaven knows that the government opposite is very centralizing. Imagine the worst.

I would like to give a brief historical outline. I could go back to George V, but I will start in 1963. At that time, Hydro-Quebec said that it was prepared to buy all the electric power produced at Churchill Falls, provided it could sell its surplus to Ontario.

Negotiations got under way in 1963, but the parties could not agree on production costs and on a price per kilowatt-hour. Three years later, in 1966, Hydro-Quebec again offered to buy the energy produced at Churchill Falls and, this time, accepted to pay the asking price.

As you can see, the contracts were not entered into lightly. It took three years of negotiating before finally reaching an agreement, in 1966. Daniel Johnson senior was somewhat reluctant to sign the deal, and rightly so, because he feared that the agreement might be interpreted as a tacit approval of a 1927 Privy Council decision regarding the border between Quebec and Newfoundland, following which Labrador became part of Newfoundland. You are all aware of that dispute.

Finally, on October 30, 1966, Johnson endorsed the Hydro-Quebec proposal, taking pains to make it clear his authorization was not of a Newfoundland-Quebec agreement but rather of one between Hydro-Quebec and the Churchill Falls and Labrador Co., alias CFLCO.

Six years after negotiations began, on March 12, 1969, the contract was signed, for the term that has just been referred to: 65 years. It stipulated that Hydro-Quebec would receive 5,225 megawatts from Churchill Falls. Another 300 of the megawatts produced at the Falls would be reserved for the Newfoundland companies.

The contract was not a one way negotiation; the two parties held discussions for years and this was the conclusion they both reached. In exchange, Hydro-Quebec accepted the bulk of the financial risks associated with the project, assuming a portion of the eventual expenditure outlay. It also contributed its technology in the area of high voltage transmission lines. At that time, this was what Newfoundland needed. We should note that the Smallwood government of Newfoundland approved and signed the contract. It bears the signature of the premier himself.

In 1974, Newfoundland nationalized CFLCO and, in 1984, as has been said, the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision-which is rather rare-in favour of Quebec, rejected Newfoundland's 1980 request to break the contract between CFLCO and Hydro-Quebec. In 1988, another Supreme Court decision confirmed the primacy of the contract signed in 1969.

The Reform Party has a lot of nerve terming this an injustice. The contract was the result of years of negotiations, and both parties were satisfied with its terms, as well they should. My hon. colleague should keep in mind that all of the provinces in this country sign trade agreements and have met on several occasions recently to try to lessen internal trade barriers.

Increasingly there are agreements with Ontario, with New Brunswick, with the Maritimes, that do not involve the federal government. We want to see more of this. It is far easier for provinces to reach agreements between themselves than with the federal government. This is why we are anxious for sovereignty, so that we can negotiate with Canada as well, for that will lead to agreements and to our being heeded more than in the past.

It is not up to the federal parliament to dictate the behaviour of these two provinces in an area that comes under provincial jurisdiction exclusively according to the British North America Act. The government's intereference in an agreement reached between two provinces strikes me as totally unacceptable. I hope the government shares my view.

My colleagues from the Reform Party, who don the garb of ardent defenders of federalism for a day, should understand that provincial relations is a matter for the provinces. I am still surprised that my colleague has tabled this motion in the House.

The members of the Reform Party are always calling for decentralization and returning matters to the provinces, and yet, today, they are playing petty, second rate politics with this motion. They think they will earn votes in Labrador by defending the people there and claiming an injustice has been done.

In other words, we Quebecers are penalizing the people of Labrador, because a contract was properly signed. Even the Supreme Court says this contract is valid and meets the required standards, and must therefore be adhered to.

I would like to ask the Reform Party to withdraw the word "injustice", because it is not injustice that Quebec is creating. We even have agreements with Newfoundland on a number of matters. We have teachers working in Newfoundland, and relations are excellent.

Certainly, the going gets a bit rougher when its premier, in his capacity as representative of all the people of Newfoundland, told us that the five little conditions we were looking for in the Meech Lake accord were not acceptable. At that point, on some issues it really hurt and it hurt a lot.

However, as far as the contract is concerned, it was signed by two firms, not the government, and it is valid. There is no injustice, and it takes a lot of nerve to call the contract unjust.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, March 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Amqui, more than 4,500 people demonstrated against the new employment insurance. Back home, we call it destitution insurance.

In light of the contemptuous and insulting remarks made by the Minister of Human Resources Development regarding union leaders in particular, the people of my riding have every reason to be concerned. Such remarks make us fear for the future.

These demonstrators are not seeking minor reforms. They are rightfully calling for the withdrawal of this bill, no more, no less. A bill which-may I remind you-is unfair and regressive and which creates unemployment and poverty.

You can rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that all Bloc members support the unemployed who are only asking for their fair share.

[Petitions, March 6th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to join my colleagues in tabling a petition bearing 94,000 names, 4,000 of which come from my riding, demanding that the government take action to allow Québec Téléphone to be granted a broadcasting license.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am anxious to put a question to the hon. member because I very seldom hear anything about rural communities in this House, particularly from that side.

The Eastern Quebec Development Bureau, as well as the operations Dignity, got started in our region 25 years ago. At the time, we worked very hard with people from various organizations. These were real people in that they took charge of their destiny. Twenty-five years later, I can see that the rural community is still in serious trouble.

Governments do not really seek to help us. I could talk about that for a long time. For example, we want to build a small slaughterhouse because we have to travel 100 kilometres to have our cattle slaughtered; we cannot do it locally, because federal standards force us to go elsewhere.

The Eastern Quebec Development Plan was abolished last year. That plan provided direct support to silviculture workers and helped land owners to get into forest management.

We also had, as everyone else in Canada, infrastructures. I want to put a question to the hon. member. In rural communities, what purpose did the infrastructure program serve, other than building sewers, sidewalks and roads? Such activities provide temporary employment, but they never create permanent jobs.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, while hon. members in the other place were relaxing, or even sleeping soundly, during the speech from the throne, workers in my riding of Matapédia-Matane decided to inform this government that they will always be opposed to unemployment insurance reform.

They will never let this government force them onto welfare when it is wasting millions of dollars on a totally obsolete institution. I want to salute them, and I am very proud of them. I hope they will keep up their fight for justice. My thoughts are with them all.

[Speech From The Throne, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in the speech from the throne, I noted very little, a few lines only, on semi-urban and rural communities.

Earlier, my colleague said that mining and forestry would be handed over to the provinces. But we know that mining and forestry are already under provincial jurisdiction. In this case, I do not know how this could be organized another way. It is a bit like the eastern plan, which worked very well for communities in eastern Quebec. It was put into effect, and timber owners were very happy.

The Conservatives, before them, had set a deadline of a year, which was extended a year, but is now about to run out, in March. Will there be compensation? When something wonderful happens somewhere, particularly in a rural setting, it would seem great

pleasure is taken in cutting it. I saw nothing in the budget to compensate for what was cut.

There are other problems in our regions. Matane has a local airport, and Mont-Joli a regional one. Major renovations are required at the moment, and the plan is to give them to the municipalities or an independent agency to do. There is a lot of talk about Mirabel and Dorval, but little thought is given to regional or local airports. Their maintenance alone will cost the people in the regions a fortune. There is nothing on that.

There is something else I would like to mention, in the area of agriculture. We, as in other regions, are having huge problems getting a meat packing plant. We apply, and this sort of thing always involves some pickiness. They do not want to help farm producers process the butcher's beef they produce.

I wonder what the budget contains for the regions, the rural communities and the farmers?

[Speech From The Throne, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when the minister talks about building something together, I am with him. When he talks about a consensus, I am also with him. When he talks about building bridges, everyone agrees with this.

But I would remind him that, since Mr. Lesage, we have been trying to build such bridges year after year. One after the other, the Liberal Party in Quebec, the Union Nationale, the Parti Quebecois tried to negotiate in the best of faith, and without bias as even the Liberals then in power met with failure. When Jean Lesage coined the phrase "Masters in our own house", he knew what he was talking about.

The minister referred to Mr. Trudeau earlier. If I understood correctly, he was saying that Mr. Trudeau kind of brought people together at some point. I am sorry, but if there is someone who isolated Quebec, it is Mr. Trudeau himself. So how can you tell me that Mr. Trudeau tried to bring Quebec into the fold.

The minister said earlier that he was insulted by the fact that I was referring to two peoples. I must repay him in kind by saying that he in turn has insulted the people of Matapédia-Matane, 64 per cent of whom voted for an independent Quebec. Sixty-four per cent of the people in my riding said yes so that we can have our

own country. That is a lot of people, and not only the member for Matapédia-Matane.

On another point, as I said earlier, there are many unemployed people in my riding. It is the minister himself who put forward the proposed employment insurance reform. In my riding, they called this poverty insurance. They say, and I think they are right, that the fund comes from employee and employer premiums. How can they take money from people who are hard-pressed to earn $20,000, $22,000 or $23,000 a year?

Our forestry workers work with chain saws in the heat of summer from five in the morning until late in the evening. It is back-breaking work. Those who have never done such work should try it.

I therefore make a suggestion to the minister who, I think, was behind this employment insurance: Since there will be a $5 billion surplus in this fund next year, why not distribute it among the regions to create jobs instead of unemployment?