Debates of Nov. 1st, 1996

Cbq-Cbc Radio

[Stan Dromisky, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Atikokan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this year CBC is celebrating its 60th anniversary. In my riding of Thunder Bay-Atikokan, CBQ-CBC Radio will be holding an open house today in order to celebrate this historic anniversary.

CBQ has been operating for the past 22 years. It has been reaching into the homes of northwestern Ontario all the way from Kenora to Thunder Bay to Sandy Lake. It has acted as a unifying link between eastern and western Canada and knits together the vast geographic area of northwestern Ontario. It has done this by establishing some very creative and superior programming.

CBC Radio provides Canadians with a unique alternative to commercial radio. Satire, discussion, stories, readings, drama, music and pertinent regional information; pure Canadiana.

Thank you CBC and thank you CBQ for serving Canada so successfully for so many years. Keep up the good work.

Navcanada

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thanks to the exceptional spirit of partnership between representatives of private enterprise and labour, the air traffic navigation and control system is being handed over today to NavCanada.

This new private non-profit corporation, which owes its existence to our government, paid $1.5 billion to take over ownership of Canada's air traffic control system.

The appearance of NavCanada will make possible improved safety in air transportation, since the Department of Transport will now oversee the work of a private enterprise, instead of its own work, as was previously the case.

The 6,200 federal government employees will keep their jobs, but as of this morning are employed by the private sector. This is another fine example of the economic possibilities offered by partnership between private enterprise, workers and the government.

Government Subsidies

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like the swallows' returning signals the coming of spring, so Liberal announcements of subsidies signal the coming of an election and a campaign of vote buying.

There is no rational defence of the subsidies to film makers and Bombardier which were announced recently. Canadian business representatives urged the finance committee to end all subsidies to industry. Huge subsidies to the Atlantic provinces were shown to have hurt rather than helped economic development.

All subsidies hurt the innocent competitors of the beneficiary. To add insult to injury, the subsidies are financed with taxes paid by the competitors. Job creation through a subsidy is matched by jobs lost through taxation.

Subsidies at election time are a Liberal tradition that stinks.

Nuclear Industry

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, two decisions by the federal government may threaten the

existence of Quebec's nuclear industry. The gradual closing of the office of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in Montreal and the decision to stop financing the Tokamak project are two decisions by the Liberal government which constitute an attack on a major industrial sector in the Montreal area.

Does the Acting Prime Minister realize that the combined impact of these two decisions on Montreal may permanently undermine the entire nuclear industry in the Montreal area, which has 36 companies specialized in the nuclear sector?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Natural Resources has explained repeatedly in the House, it was decided that the priorities of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited would include not only research and development but also the sales of CANDU reactors.

I believe the hon. member is well aware that many Quebec companies benefit as a result of CANDU sales, and that is the priority of this organization.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec companies could hope to win contracts, and they did, because there was an office of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in Montreal. The rest is just promises.

However the federal government can do more than just make promises, when it manages to find the $33 million needed to guarantee the survival of the Triumph project in British Columbia.

How do we explain the fact that the government is unable to find the $7 million needed to guarantee the survival of Tokamak in Varennes, which happens to be the most important hi-tech research project in Quebec? Why could the government not find a mere $7 million?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I notice it is not the former science and technology critic asking this question, because he sent me a letter saying he agreed with the government's decision to shore up previous investments in Triumph.

A number of scientists at Quebec universities are doing their research at Triumph and also at CERN in Europe. This is a very important package.

Second, I am really surprised to hear the hon. member say that, as far as research and development is concerned, Tokamak is the most important research centre in Quebec. The hon. member is actually saying that all other research in sectors such as biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, aeronautics and aerospace are less important. And this in spite of the fact that we explained recently in the House that the only hi-tech sector where Canada has a trade surplus is the aerospace sector.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we did not say that we were against the $33 million for the Triumph project. We did not say that.

The minister could look at the blues, in French or in English, and he will see I never said that. He just has a one track mind. I said that if the government was capable of finding $33 million for British Columbia, it should be able to find a mere $7 million for Quebec. I am talking about nuclear energy and the most important hi-tech project in the nuclear sector in Quebec. That is a fact.

I do not understand why the minister does not understand, unless he will not understand-that is another problem, and I am not sure there is a cure.

How can the minister go along with patriating the entire nuclear energy sector to Ontario? And subcontractors will follow. These are major contracts. How can the government patriate all this to Ontario, at a time when economic spinoffs in this sector are starting to materialize?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the lack of understanding comes from the other side of the House.

[Douglas Young, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

No doubt about it.

[John Manley, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

The hon. member should realize that science and technology produces benefits for all Canadians by creating the research which then creates jobs in commercial applications.

Only recently, we made some very important investments in the Montreal area and elsewhere in Quebec. We invested non only in Canadair, which is very important, but also in Mitel, in Bromont, which is engaged in research or semiconductors. We have invested in biotechnology at the biotechnology institute of the National Research Ccentre in Montreal, to create a kind of incubator that will create jobs in this sector.

There is more to it than just saying: All right, you cut here, but if you did not find the money there, because we have limited funds, so we must establish certain priorities. The priorities in the Montreal area are the pharmaceutical industry, biotechnology and aerospace, and that is the kind of investment we made.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. I imagine it

will greatly reassure the Minister of Industry, since I will be taking the liberty of quoting the Prime Minister of Canada, so I trust both of us will understand the same thing.

On October 22, in Montreal, in a fine speech filled with good intentions, the Prime Minister stated as follows, in connection with the high tech industries: "In the future, the federal government must, and will, help these industries to expand in Montreal." Yet this is far from the situation in reality. Again this week, we learn that the federal government is speeding up the closure of CITI, the Centre for Information Technologies Innovation, in Laval, and has given up on the idea of privatizing it, despite an offer from the private sector, which was made in due form.

Does the minister realize that closing CITI, which had more than 135 high tech jobs two years ago and received some $13 million annually, is not the way for his government to help high tech industries to expand?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we made the decision to begin by privatizing CITI some years ago, and we negotiated in good faith with MicroCell the possible purchase of the centre.

We have determined that accepting the proposal they made did not represent a good return for us. It must be understood, however, as I have just stated, that priorities need to be determined. Where does the money come from to help Canadair? Where does the money come from to invest in the Institut de biotechnologie?

Sometimes choices have to be made. We have taken what I consider to be wise decisions. If a good proposal for the privatization of CITI could not be found, perhaps that was the best choice.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, the minister is very skilled at dragging out red herrings by reminding us that the $85 million interest-free loan to Canadair is not just some trifle.

Of the 143 federal research centres in Canada, 23 were located in Quebec. Is he going to realize, finally, that the Liberal government is the one undermining the economy of Montreal, and that CITI, Tokamak and the high tech sectors of Atomic Energy of Canada being moved-in case these have slipped his mind-are blatant examples of their bad faith?

[John Manley, Liberal, Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, what astounds me is that, every time the Bloc asks science and technology related questions, they pass themselves off as victims.

The figures, in actual fact, are as follows. They indicate clearly, if the National Capital Region is excluded, as Quebec does for its own figures, that Quebec receives over 27 per cent of science and technology spending. Still more important, moreover, is the efficiency of our spending, since the objective is to create jobs and not just to be theoretically in favour of science. If the objective is to create jobs, we find that 41 per cent of R & D tax credits are claimed by Quebec businesses.

This tells me that our investments in the sectors I have noted: pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, aerospace, are more effective in Quebec, because they have created businesses capable of claiming tax credits. This is a strong sector in Quebec. They need to see themselves as winners, not losers.

Ethics

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when the people of Canada turfed the previous Conservative government in 1993 they did so because they wanted to trust their government again. Some voted Liberal because of the red book promises which headlined: "Honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored". It seems that the implementation of the red book promises has been directed more to improving damage control procedures than to actually insisting on integrity among ministers.

Because of his close association with the Prime Minister, even the ethics counsellor is viewed as part of the damage control team.

Will the Prime Minister set the ethics counsellor free so that he can do the job Canadians expect him to do for them instead of merely being another mouthpiece of the Prime Minister and his government?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor is doing the job expected of him by Canadians. This is clear by the rulings he has issued and the overall manner in which he is carrying out his work.

At the same time, the Prime Minister has made it clear that he is the one who has to take ultimate responsibility for his ministers and he is also doing that. This is a further sign of the high priority he puts on ethics and integrity.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in all of my years of teaching I did not allow my students to mark their own exams. This government has marked itself and claims that the appointment of the independent ethics counsellor has been achieved, and yet we observe that the ethics counsellor receives his instructions from the Prime Minister and answers to the Prime Minister.

What is the Liberal working definition of the word independent?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear from the way the ethics counsellor does his work that he is operating independently, using his own good judgment.

The comment of the Reform spokesman is an unfair and unjustified reflection on the good work done by the ethics counsellor.

That is why when the Canadian people mark the Reform Party in the next election it will be marked as a complete failure and the hon. member will be back attempting to teach.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it very clear that we are not here attacking either the person or the work of the ethics counsellor. We are challenging the conditions under which he must try to do his work.

No one knows this government's standards of ethical conduct. The ministers should know them, but it seems they do not. Canadians in general and even ordinary MPs in the House do not know them because they are kept a secret. The standards which are upheld change from day to day. It is like taking a measurement with a rubber ruler.

Can the Prime Minister please explain why he is afraid of divulging the standards that he expects from his ministers?

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made it very clear that because of his views on integrity and the high priority he places on it that he feels that no one can take a higher degree of responsibility than he. He has conveyed his rules and standards to his ministers. He is ready as Prime Minister to be accountable to the Canadian people. I would think that when it comes to using a rubber ruler, if the hon. member continues with these questions the Canadian people will take him to the office and use a rubber ruler on him in the next election.

Zaire

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. As the fighting between the Tutsi rebels and the Zairian army continues today around the Goma airport, the humanitarian workers in that city are getting ready to evacuate to avoid being caught in the middle. Some ten Canadian aid workers, including five Quebecers, were to be evacuated in a land convoy to a safer location.

Can the Acting Prime Minister give us an update on the current situation in Zaire and tell this House if humanitarian workers from Canada and Quebec are currently safe?

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)]

Mr. Speaker, there are seven Canadians in the national humanitarian organizations in that region.

Given the rapid deterioration of the situation, plans are being implemented for their evacuation. The Department of Foreign Affairs is closely monitoring the situation to ensure that all efforts are being made to ensure their protection.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is cause for alarm as the centre of Goma is now being pounded by mortar and gun fire. As a result, foreign nationals have been confined to their hotels.

Can the Acting Prime Minister or the Secretary of State tell us what orders the Department of Foreign Affairs has issued regarding the Quebecers and Canadians working over there, and what measures it has actually planned to help these workers in case they are unable to leave the battle zone?

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)]

Mr. Speaker, the seven Canadians I talked about are in the Goma region. As I indicated earlier, we are preparing plans for the evacuation of those Canadians. We are monitoring the situation very closely.