René Canuel

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-23. We got involved in the production of nuclear energy without being in a position to ensure the consequences properly.

We got involved in the development and production of nuclear energy without really knowing all the ins and outs of it. For years, we have been producing tons of nuclear waste without being able to handle that waste properly.

Our governments have not been equipped to properly manage the hazards to public health, and to the environment in particular. Our governments have been particularly incapable of proper monitoring, as we are well aware.

It is, therefore, not surprising that every time there is an attempt to develop or use a new nuclear technology, environmental organizations and the general public are up in arms. As you are aware, there is a lot of fear among the public.

We must not close our eyes, either, to the fact that the current arsenal of nuclear weapons in circulation on this planet represents a risk of totally annihilating the human race, and the public is very much aware of this.

We all know that there are impressive quantities of nuclear weapons, plutonium and heavy water in Russia, and our governments fear a black market may develop. Non-democratic countries and terrorist groups might get their hands on atomic weapons or on the raw materials for producing such weapons. Even small countries can get them.

I see Bill C-23 as only a tiny step toward enhanced government control, and one that is way too late in coming. It is a very tiny response to the justified fear of the public, of Quebecers in particular.

This bill does not, in fact, solve anything much. In particular, it does not get to the heart of the problem.

Will we really be better protected when this bill is passed? Hardly. What is this government doing to prevent the use of nuclear products in weapons of destruction? I do not think Bill C-23 provides the answer to this question.

As citizens we may well wonder whether this government realizes that mankind is living on top of a volcano. The existing legislation, which goes back to 1946, maintained an almost incestuous relationship between research, marketing and control. There was a genuine conflict of interest.

Fortunately, the bill proposes to separate the two components. How could anyone expect those who develop new technologies and are supposed to market them to exercise effective and much needed controls?

It is like asking the big oil companies to calibrate gas pumps. Not that I do not trust them, but I have very little doubt they would try to take advantage of the situation. So it took the federal government 50 years to realize that this legislation was ill conceived and did not satisfactorily protect the interests of Quebecers and Canadians.

How can you expect the public, which has many fears about nuclear energy, to start trusting this government and the new nuclear safety commission? This public trust will be extremely difficult to rebuild, and I can hardly believe that, with the passage of this bill, all problems will disappear.

In fact, I expect the government wants us to forget the latest visit of the Prime Minister to Russia, when there was some talk of purchasing nuclear waste and processing it here in Canada. At the time, this decision raised a wave of public protest.

There is another matter the government probably could have dealt with as well by examining the question of nuclear energy and introducing a bill on the subject. All things considered, if we analyse research and development investments in the nuclear energy sector in Canada, it is clear that one province alone enjoys practically all the economic spinoffs in this sector. I am of course referring to the province of Ontario.

Who else in confederation is as well endowed with the largesse of the federal government? Who else in this confederation has a vested interest in maintaining Atomic Energy of Canada Limited? Who else in this confederation gets so many of the spinoffs of this industry? It is Ontario, always Ontario, that is the winner in the area of research and development.

If the government were half way serious, it would have used the opportunity to consider the question. In this area in particular, it could have extended its generosity to Quebec. It provides strong support for nuclear energy simply as a favour to the industry in Ontario, in my opinion.

I had hoped that the federal government would commit to better distribute its research and development funds by amending this bill. I am not saying give Quebec the advantage, but give it what it is entitled to. It did the very opposite. We saw this recently with the closing of the regional offices of Atomic Energy of Canada, including those in Montreal. They close the Montreal offices and open others in Ontario.

I would also have hoped that the government would make clear its desire for more research and development projects on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Nuclear medicine has a very definite place, and funding should be increased to enable hospitals to do research. The public will accept atomic energy only when it sees its peaceful uses and its role in everyday life and only when it sees the government has established near perfect means to control the risks involved in its use and development.

The introduction of this bill in the House could also have raised the issue of funding for Atomic Energy of Canada for debate.

I would now like to discuss the funding of the sale of Candu reactors around the world. It is all very well to make sales, but do the countries receiving them have the means to protect themselves and their people? What about financing the sale of CANDU reactors throughout the world? Atomic Energy of Canada is just as much of a bottomless pit as the Hibernia project off Newfoundland may be.

Since this agency was created, billions of dollars have been sunk into it, and the government is only able to sell CANDU reactors by financing them with money from Canadian and Quebec taxpayers. In reality, the sale of CANDU reactors, with their supposedly safe technology, is nothing more than a clever way of subsidizing Atomic Energy of Canada.

This government would have done better to overhaul Atomic Energy of Canada's operations. The days when the government could squander taxpayers' money are long gone. When a government makes savage cuts to unemployment insurance, contemplates making cuts to old age pensions, and attacks the most disadvantaged members of society, it should start by cleaning up its own act.

The necessary clean-up has not been done at Atomic Energy Canada, and Bill C-23 would have provided an excellent opportunity to do just that. The timing was right. The government missed the boat in this case as in so many others. This is a half measure that will only disguise the true extent of the atomic energy management problem.

I think this bill comes too late. It is nevertheless worthwhile, except that it should have been better thought out. This is a bill that could have made a great many Canadians happy.

[Excise Tax Act, February 6th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is a bit embarrassing and even humiliating to have to claim what is rightly ours.

Once again, the province of Quebec, through Mr. Landry, is talking about $2 billion that we now have to claim, compared to the maritimes. The GST saga under this Liberal government will go down in the history of our Canadian Parliament, and what a tale it will be. It will be known as one and even several broken promises.

During the 1993 election campaign the prime minister and his ministers promised during their tour of Canada, especially in Quebec, that they would create jobs. "Jobs, jobs, jobs", they kept saying. The next election will be here soon and they will probably use the same slogan and again promise us "jobs, jobs, jobs". In my riding of Matapédia-Matane, we are still looking for the jobs the federal government has supposedly created.

There was another promise. First, let me remind the House of the promises made in the red book on page 22: "The GST has lengthened and deepened the recession. It is costly for small business to administer and very expensive for the government to collect. And the GST has fallen far short of its promised revenue

potential partly because it has stimulated the underground cash economy".

Could it be that once in office federal Liberals realized that the commitments they made in the red book did not hold water? Could it be that, with the Liberals in office, the GST no longer deepens the recession? That it is no longer costly for small business to administer and that it is bringing in its promised revenue potential?

Moreover, if what is in the red book is true, the GST has now suddenly stopped stimulating the underground cash economy. I have a hard time believing that a miracle has happened since the Liberals, these princes of darkness, took office.

Further down on the same page of the red book, we can read: "A Liberal government will replace the GST with a system that generates equivalent revenues, is fairer to consumers and to small business, minimizes disruption to small business, and promotes federal-provincial fiscal co-operation and harmonization".

If I understand correctly, the GST is unfair for consumers and small businesses. It is also a nightmare for small and medium size businesses, and it deters federal and provincial governments from co-operating and harmonizing their policies.

All those big defects would also have, as if by chance, disappeared a few months after the Liberals came to power. Federal Liberals, by some sort of magical trick, would have toned down the GST's worst effects, and the GST would no longer hurt anyone. On the contrary, it would almost be a godsend.

After the broken promises of the red book came the promise made by the Prime Minister who, like a new messiah, stated that he would abolish the tax. Some time later, he said that he had never promised such a thing. He only said that the GST would be replaced. This is hard to believe for me as well as for my constituents and the rest of the country.

Can we believe the Prime Minister? Can we have faith in him? The Deputy Prime Minister even resigned because she had really promised to abolish the GST. But the Prime Minister always affirmed the contrary. The Deputy Prime Minister resigned, and it cost us half a million dollars to get her re-elected. What a scandal. What utter nonsense. It is another episode in the GST saga.

As for the Minister of Finance, he admits that he cannot replace the GST nor abolish it. At least he admits having made a mistake by letting people believe it was possible. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, maintains he never said he would abolish the tax.

The rest of the story is not really any rosier. Quebec, which is administered by a nasty sovereigntist government-according to the federalists-decided to harmonize that tax with its own taxation system. Aware of the extra red tape that tax represents for businesses, the government of Quebec decided to take action to help the economy.

However, it will not receive any compensation from the federal government. The only expression of thank Quebecers will get from the Minister of Finance for having saved him money will be the obligation to pay a quarter of the compensation of almost one billion dollars that was granted to the maritimes. Not only will we not receive anything but we will have to help the maritimes. This is clearly another example of the inequities of the federal system as managed by our friends across the floor.

To get out of the mess they put themselves in, the Liberals are ready to buy the concurrence by the maritimes. They will buy the tax harmonization by making taxpayers in Quebec and Canada cough up almost one billion dollars.

The Quebec government does not ask for different treatment, but only for the same treatment as the maritimes. However, the federal government does not want to give compensation because it is Quebec.

It must be said that we, Quebecers, are unfortunately used to that kind of attitude from the federal government. In research and development, you know that we never got our fair share. The history of the Canadian Confederation is full of examples of that. So, you will understand that we have had enough.

That is why Quebecers want to achieve sovereignty. We no longer want to pay federal taxes that will go directly to the maritimes. We do not want the government to play that dirty trick on us. Mind you it is not the first time.

We no longer want to pay for the errors made by the federal government, let alone for campaign promises that a party is unable to keep. We no longer want policies such as the national energy policy which, in the 70s, almost completely destroyed Quebec's petrochemical industry without any compensation for Quebec.

I am almost tempted to say thank you. Quebecers will remember that. They will not be fooled by this government in the next election. This time, we do not want to hear about jobs, jobs, jobs. Two billion dollars represent 35,000 jobs, which would lower the unemployment rate by 1 per cent in Quebec. We need these 35,000 jobs, especially in my riding of Matapédia-Matane. The government owes it to us.

We are not asking for a gift, we are simply asking to get back what we pay in taxes to the federal government.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 4th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-23, in Clause 72, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 37 on page 42 with the following:

"72. The Commission shall, within four months after the end of each fiscal year, submit to the Minister a report of the activities of the Commission under this Act for that fiscal year, incorporating any comments received from any interested party regarding its internal management, operations and business practices and stating how such comments have affected the way it carries out its mandate, and the Minister shall cause the"

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-23, in Clause 72, be amended by replacing lines 33 to 40 on page 42 with the following:

"72. The Commission shall, within four months after the end of each fiscal year, a ) hold public hearings, in accordance with the prescribed rules of procedure, regarding its internal management, operations and business partners during the fiscal year; and b ) submit to the Minister a report of the activities of the Commission under this Act, including the public hearings held under paragraph ( a ), for that fiscal year, and

the Minister shall cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on any of the first fifteen days on which that House is sitting after receiving it."

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 4th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-23 be amended by adding after line 12 on page 36 the following new Clause:

"51.1 No person shall be found guilty of an offence under this Act or a regulation made thereunder if the person establishes that he or she exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission."

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 4th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-23, in Clause 44, be amended by a ) replacing lines 21 to 23 on page 27 with the following:

"44. (1) The Commission may, with the approval of the Governor in Council and subject to subsections (1.1) and (1.2), make regulations"; and b ) adding after line 25 on page 30 the following:

"(1.1) In making a regulation under subsection (1), the Commission shall have regard to the principle that persons subject to the regulation should not be required to bear costs that are unreasonable in comparison with the anticipated benefits.

(1.2) The Commission shall make no regulation under subsection (1) that, in its opinion, will require persons subject to the regulation to bear costs that are unreasonable in comparison with the anticipated benefits."

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-23, in Clause 44, be amended by replacing lines 5 to 7 on page 29 with the following:

"(i) prescribing the fees that may be charged for the provision, by the Commission, of information, products and services, following consultation with any parties who have notified the Commission in writing of their desire to be consulted in this matter;"

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-23, in Clause 44, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 10 on page 29 with the following: j ) prescribing

(i) initial fees or the method of calculating the initial fees that may be charged for a licence or class of licence, and

(ii) after consultation with the licensees, the fees or the method of calculating the fees that may be charged for renewal of a licence or class of licence;"

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 4th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-23, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 2 on page 6 with the following:

"more than seven permanent members, among whom there shall be at least one representative of an organization generally recognized for at least five years for its work in environmental protection and a representative of the nuclear industry, to be"

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-23, in Clause 10, be amended by replacing line 3 on page 6 with the following:

"appointed by the Governor in Council following approval by resolution of the Senate and the House of Commons."

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, February 4th, 1997]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-23, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 5 and 6 on page 2 with the following:

""Minister" means the Minister of the Environment or such member of the Queen's"

[Arts And Culture, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Artqui Média on its 10th anniversary.

Indeed, Artqui Média has been promoting arts and culture for 10 years already. To mark this anniversary, a gala dinner under the theme "Une fête en art, couleur d'Agate" recently took place in Amqui, with 450 people in attendance, and Agate prizes were awarded on that occasion.

Since 1987, 129 people have been awarded these prestigious honours. We are not always aware of the contribution made by those who work very hard to brighten our daily lives and promote an awareness of beauty.

The 10 years of Artqui Média are evidence that, even in remote areas, the discovery, promotion and development of the arts is possible. I congratulate the artists who were awarded Agate prizes, and all the others as well. I also congratulate their big sister, Lise Bédard-Archambault, for her great success. Again, congratulations to all our artists.

[Canada Elections Act, November 22nd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate you, except you should remember that I represent Matapédia-Matane.

I would like to open up the debate just a bit, rather than limiting my remarks solely to the amendment by my colleague, the member for Bellechasse, who deserves special congratulations for his amendments, because he introduced several.

I think that we are moving a bit too quickly, and that we should look a bit more closely at what has been done. I am not on the committee, but it is important not to act in haste. In my view, there is a great deal at stake.

A year, or a year and a half ago as I recall, the riding of Matapédia-Matane was even going to be wiped off the map.

The people I spoke with said: "That's crazy. Who thought that up?" I said: "It is a mandate of the government, which thinks that Matapédia-Matane does not have the necessary population, and they want to go by population". That got quite a reaction out of people.

The second agreement was that, instead of eliminating the riding of Matapédia-Matane, they are going to redraw the boundaries of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. This does not make any sense either, because if I draw you a map, or if you travel at all, you will see that the riding of Matapédia-Matane takes in Matane, obviously, and Amqui; on the north shore, Sainte-Anne-des-Monts and Cap-Chat as far as Madeleine; on the other shore, it takes in Carleton and Maria, no small distance.

The old riding consisted of the triangle formed by Mont-Joli, Matane and Amqui, which worked fine. There is no longer any sense of belonging. People really are right to say that they should go back to the drawing board and set up another commission, one that will listen to people in the regions. Village by village, these people have built a sort of family. When one village is lumped in with another, they feel hard done by, excluded. They are virtually excluded. I am therefore asking them to go back to the drawing board, or if they do not have the courage to do so, that at the least

the Bloc amendments as proposed by my colleague from Bellechasse be accepted.

Looking at the amendment proposing that the date of birth be included, this strikes me as logic itself. I would not like to pick up on the arguments of other members who have been quoting Boileau. One could quote other philosophers and say this: Listen up here. When something is obvious, it is obvious, so let us give up demonstrating it over and over. There is something obvious involved here, and we are trying to demonstrate an evident truth. Let us give up on that and just accept what is pure common sense.

What are the advantages other than those already mentioned? When someone turns 15, we will know it. When we say, in connection with the total population, that there are so and so many people in Canada, in Quebec, aged 16, 17, 18, we will know and can then take the necessary steps to provide them with some political education. The first time somebody votes is really something special for him or her. The schools are giving young people more and more information now, but those who have never shown any interest could be given more preparation when they reach 16, 17 or 18. With the figures in front of us, we will be able to help them and provide them with more information.

For these reasons, because there are many arguments on both sides, from the Reform Party and from the Bloc, I am asking the House to support the amendment of my colleague from Bellechasse, and I shall be speaking later on the other amendments.

[Divorce Act, November 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to my hon. colleague most carefully and I find she has raised some very important points.

It seems to me that the bill is being somewhat rushed through third reading, considering its great importance. I have worked in education much of my life, and I have had students whose parents were going to divorce or were involved in a divorce. I became aware of the numerous conflicts around equal division.

This is probably a step in the right direction, but I find it insufficient. Equitable, fair and honest division of property is a complex thing. Who will suffer if there is any conflict? The spouses, of course, but the children are the ones who will suffer most. Children and teenagers are very sensitive to these problems.

Another point justifiably raised by my colleague concerns visiting rights. I endorse her words 100 per cent. This needs to be looked at again. This bill perhaps needs to be returned to a committee. If it is tabled as it is, even if it is generally in order, there are certain negative aspects to it.

Furthermore, I believe that this entire question ought to be a provincial responsibility. If marriage is a provincial responsibility, why not divorce also? My colleague called for this, and I back her up 100 per cent.

My question to my colleague is this: even if the Bloc feels the bill is generally in order, has sufficient thought been given to the children? Will they feel more secure after this bill is passed, or will they still feel more or less the way they did in the past, that is almost totally insecure? Will they still worry about whether their father or mother will be able to see them tomorrow? Is there still too much leeway here? Will the division really be done properly? Why not take advantage of this opportunity to delegate this power to the provinces? I think everyone would benefit.