This is out of order.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 64% of the vote.
Taxation June 13th, 1996
This is out of order.
First Ministers Conference June 13th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister admitted to the House yesterday that this condition has already been satisfied at least three times. That still does not answer why we are discussing it at all.
Can the minister make two other commitments, if he is so committed to public consultation, to describe to us the public consultation which has taken place leading up to this first ministers conference and will he commit, as the Liberal Party did in 1992, that no constitutional change will be made unless it is submitted to a national referendum?
First Ministers Conference June 13th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Klein has said he will not participate in secret discussions on the Constitution and he would walk out of a first ministers conference that did that.
Premier Clark said he will not participate and yesterday premier Bouchard repeated he will not participate in constitutional discussions at the first ministers conference.
Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs make a commitment that at the FMC any discussions of the Constitution will either be public and open or the agenda item will be withdrawn?
Supply June 5th, 1996
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 I do not quote the Prime Minister often, but the Prime Minister himself said that the rest of Canada and Quebec profit from the development of Alberta's tar sands.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.
Supply June 5th, 1996
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
First Ministers Conference June 4th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, we are aware that there is a finance ministers meeting on this. The premiers of Ontario and Quebec and others have asked that this be on the agenda for the first ministers meeting.
There are rumours that the conference is scheduled to discuss transfers of federal powers and realignment of authority to the provinces. Will the federal government table its proposals in this area in this House so Canadians can know in precise detail what is being offered and discussed by the first ministers before any deals are cooked?
First Ministers Conference June 4th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, let me ask about another item that may be under discussion, the GST.
Several premiers say they want to discuss the botched GST harmonization and the special payout of a billion dollars to the Liberal premiers in Atlantic Canada.
Will the minister agree with several of the premiers that this should be put on the first ministers' agenda?
First Ministers Conference June 4th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
In grand Brian Mulroney style the federal government is planning a first ministers conference behind closed doors with only the federal government able to set the agenda. The premiers of Ontario and Quebec have said they do not want constitutional issues on the agenda and the premier of Alberta has said he will walk out if the Constitution is reopened.
My question is very simple. Since there is no necessity of discussing the Constitution, little desire to discuss it and no possibility of agreement, will the minister simply agree that reopening the Constitution will not be on the first ministers' agenda?
Petitions June 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present to the House a petition bearing 1,940 signatures mainly from the city of Calgary but also from other parts of Alberta and Canada asking that Parliament refrain from closing CFB Calgary and moving the Lord Strathcona's Horse, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and First Service Battalion. The petitioners ask that for reasons of both sound economics and military history.
I point out to the government that I have presented petitions on this subject with a total over 10,000 signatures.
Unemployment Insurance Act June 3rd, 1996
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-292, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Mr. Speaker, this bill would amend the Unemployment Insurance Act to allow a group of workers, hairdressers, the ability to become self-employed under conditions other than full ownership of a hairdressing establishment.
Under the current system, hairdressers who rent chairs and who normally would be considered self-employed are not allowed to withdraw from the unemployment insurance system like other self-employed individuals. This requires them to submit considerable sums of money to a system that does not serve their needs. Further, many individuals do not have the capital to set up a hairdressing establishment but would rather work for themselves on a smaller scale.
This bill intends to allow these individuals to be self-employed without the major constraints put exclusively on this category of workers by the current UI regulations.
Through the introduction of several criteria, this bill creates a definition of self-employment so that the current law would better serve the needs of this group of Canadian workers.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)