René Canuel

[Supply, June 19th, 1996]

Reform cows.

[Nuclear Safety And Control Act, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to create the new Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. As my colleague has just pointed out, the old legislation dates back to 1946, so it can certainly be described as outmoded.

This commission is primarily a monitoring body, and whenever I hear monitoring, I wonder who will do this. Will the number of monitors be increased? What will their qualifications be? What will this all cost?

The commission's mandate is also to monitor the impact of nuclear activities on health. This is very important. In my riding I see people from Russia who have been the victims of nuclear

accidents. They take years to recover. They need fresh air and good food as well. It is obvious that there can never be too many protective precautions taken.

The commission will also be responsible for safety, which is all very well and good. The environment needs more looking after, as we are told, and I feel that the commission will be better able to protect our environment. Very often the opposition is criticized for doing nothing but finding fault, but I think that, when a bill is worthwhile, that must be acknowledged. The Bloc acknowledges the definite quality of this bill.

The commission may also set national standards. I believe that it is important, yet my colleague was saying earlier that ertain powers can be turned over to the provinces. Here again-alas, too often-that can lead to quarrelling. I wonder why more powers are not turned over to the provinces.

The commission will also play a role in implementing policy and international commitments concerning the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Finally, it has a major role to play in co-ordinating emergency measures, for instance in the event of a leak at a nuclear plant.

Where nuclear energy and radioactive emissions are concerned, it is essential that safety be a government priority. Clearly, the old Atomic Energy Control Act which, as I have said, dates back to 1946, was essentially focussed on national security.

Today, as everyone knows, there is a far wider use of sources of radiation. The legislation must, therefore, be brought up to date. The new bill is an improvement over the old. Still, Quebec has voiced certain concerns relating to workers in the nuclear industry who were not covered by either the Canada Labour Code or any provincial legislation.

This legal vacuum posed certain safety problems, in nuclear plants for instance. The Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, passed this March 26, filled the need. It also contains the concept that a person may not be held responsible for an incident if he or she has taken all reasonable steps.

But here again, we must agree on the meaning of the word reasonable. Who is going to define it? I do not think we can be half reasonable. There are however a number of questions to be answered when we look to the courts of law for an exact definition of the criteria of the word reasonable. As for the expression "exercise diligence", "diligence" is a big word, but it must be clarified in this legislation, in the application of the standards in effect, to prevent an error occurring.

The Bloc Quebecois would like this to be included in Bill C-23, as it is in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The Canadian commission would also monitor the use of instruments with a radioactive component. Hospitals also use radioactive equipment in certain treatments and diagnoses. The commission would inspect this equipment and ensure it meets safety standards. Business does its own inspections and sends samples to the experts on the commission. Both large and small and medium size business do so.

The commission claims to charge companies using its radioactive source services the actual cost of the inspection. However, certain companies claim that the federal government is not doing everything in its power and that, very often, it is too expensive. Therefore, business has a different story.

The big power companies argue that it is the consumers who end up paying for the ever-increasing fees set by the commission.

We are also in favour of cost recovery so that a balance can be struck. Annual fee increases would, I feel, be improper. A commission like this one is sometimes used to generate profits, even when the fees are said to serve other purposes.

This bill should require the commission to consult with licensees and consider their views before imposing or raising user fees.

This, of course, is a sensitive issue. Some argue that the safety benefits are priceless, that safety standards could always be more rigorous, regardless of the implementation costs. But there is a limit. Few people feel that a regulation's advantages and disadvantages should be assessed before it is imposed on governments, businesses and individuals.

The Bloc Quebecois recognizes the need to act very carefully in this regard, as well as the risk of giving too much weight to economic interests compared to the significant safety needs. Let me give you an example. I was in committee earlier and mention was made of imposing a tax to register small boats such as pedal boats. This shows how a government can take advantage of the people at any time. A supposedly noble motive turns into a money grab. The initially noble motive becomes perverted.

It is, however, necessary to consider the possibility that the commission may have the mandate to conduct its own cost-benefit analysis of the regulations and standards it applies and intends to apply in the future. This would better protect the interests of businesses and their customers.

A number of conclusions can be drawn from the many nuclear disasters that have occurred around the world. It can be said that we all played sorcerer's apprentice with nuclear energy.

In certain respects, we went much too fast. We did not have the expertise, but we thought it would be the best form of energy in the world. We are paying the price today.

Man has played sorcerer's apprentice with some extremely dangerous products. We became involved in the production of nuclear energy without being able to effectively deal with the consequences. We became involved in the development and production of nuclear energy without really knowing all the facts. We generated tons of nuclear waste without being able to process them effectively, and that is a tragedy.

Our governments have failed to effectively manage health and environmental hazards. Our governments also proved to be incapable of exercising effective control. It is no wonder that, every time an attempt is made to develop or use new nuclear technologies, environmental organizations cry out against the idea and the public itself is wary, and rightly so.

We must not overlook the fact that the nuclear arsenal currently available worldwide could totally destruct humanity and the public is perfectly aware of this. I would not take much to blow up the planet, just one madman, and in this world of ours there is no lack of madmen.

We all know that there are huge stocks of nuclear weapons, plutonium and heavy water in Russia, and that our governments are afraid a black market might develop. Non democratic countries and terrorist groups could then have access to atomic weapons or anything they need to build such weapons.

How can we expect those who develop and sell new technologies to be able to exercise control? In a great many cases, they should exercise control but do not even have this control they should be exercising.

It took the federal government 50 years to come to the realization that this ill-conceived legislation does not adequately protect the people of Quebec and Canada. How do you expect nuclear wary people to trust this government and the new commission after that? Even with the right tools, will the commission be able to ensure adequate monitoring?

It will also be difficult to restore public confidence. I just cannot believe that passing this bill will solve all our problems. Prudence dictates we must give ourselves monitoring standards. In fact I suspect this government is trying to make us forget about the Prime Minister's last visit to Russia, when the purchase of nuclear waste to be processed in Canada was discussed. Members will recall that there had been an outcry over this decision. And for a very good reason.

The government could probably have resolved another problem by dealing with the nuclear energy issue and introducing a bill on this subject. It is clear from analyzing nuclear energy research and development investments made in Canada that almost all the economic benefits in that area go to the same province, and this province, as you know, is Ontario.

In Quebec, we inherited the unemployment insurance-which I call and will always call poverty insurance-while Ontario gets money for research and development. We are still, unfortunately, the forgotten ones.

Who, in this federation, benefits as much from the federal government's generosity? Who else in this federation has such an interest in seeing Atomic Energy of Canada maintained? Who else in this federation benefits as much from the spinoffs of this industry? No one else. Ontario is the only one.

Had this government been serious in its approach, it would have seized the opportunity to look at this issue. The government greatly favours the development of nuclear energy, but does so only as a service to the Ontario industry.

While amending the current act, the government should make a formal commitment to better distribute its R and D money between the provinces, particularly those which receive the least, such as Quebec.

But the government did just the opposite when it recently announced the closing of EACL regional offices in Montreal. Montreal was hit again, not to mention the decision affecting Varennes and before that, the Maurice-Lamontagne Institute.

I would also have liked to see the government clearly affirm its will to promote R and D for peaceful uses of nuclear energy. As we know, nuclear energy can be used for the best and for the worst purposes. It can be useful and it can kill. It can save lives and it can eliminate thousands.

The public will only accept atomic energy when it will see its peaceful applications and its usefulness in everyday life.

It will only accept atomic energy when it will see that the government gave itself the means to control almost perfectly-I am tempted to leave out the word almost, but let us keep a margin for human error-all the risks related to its use and its development.

Another important problem we should have been able to tackle openly in considering this bill in the House is the financing of Atomic Energy of Canada, the financing of CANDU reactors throughout the world. Financially, Atomic Energy of Canada is just as much of a bottomless pit as the Hibernia project off Newfoundland may turn out to 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. If that is not a scandal, what is?

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 operating methods. The days when the government could squander taxpayers' money have long gone, and gone, I hope, forever.

When a government slashes employment insurance, unemployment insurance, and gets ready to cut pensions and OAS, when a government attacks the poorest members of society, it should first clean up its own act.

Yes, Bill C-23 represents a step forward. The Bloc Quebecois will vote in favour of this bill.

I pointed out a number of things, and some amendments could probably be made.

I am still critical of the fact that this bill should have been presented 10, 15 or 20 years ago, and at least at the beginning of this Legislature. But we we always have to wait. At a certain point, the government wakes up, but it is always ordinary citizens that get it started. In other words, this government needs a good push before it says: "Oh dear, we have not been careful enough. For 50 years now, safety has been lacking in the nuclear field". In 1996, they told themselves it was time to get moving.

This government is like that. The preceding government was no better. So, listen to the opposition for a bit longer. We are making some very good suggestions, because we listen more carefully to our constituents, and our constituents have a lot to tell us. I say that the average citizen is incredibly wise.

When in power, a governement realizes that it is inevitably drawn away from the people. After three or four years, it realizes that the people are on one side and it is on the other. At this point in time, those who represent the people best are, of course, the opposition parties, and particularly the official opposition because it does not lean to the far right. When the left has good ideas, they are well received, when the right has good ideas, they are also well received. The important thing here is good ideas.

I will conclude by saying that this bill is a good bill and that it is long overdue. We will follow it closely because a bill in itself is not much, what counts is the way it is implemented. In that regard, we will be there to call the government to order if need be.

[Supply, June 5th, 1996]

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.

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.

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.

[Atomic Energy Of Canada Limited, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, why is the minister concentrating on systematically destroying Quebec's scientific potential all the time, always in favour of Ontario?

[Atomic Energy Of Canada Limited, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

On top of the withdrawal from the tokamak project in Varennes, now this Monday the parliamentary secretary has confirmed that Atomic Energy of Canada is looking at the possibility of moving its offices from Montreal to Toronto, which would mean a direct loss of 120 jobs to the Montreal region.

Can the Minister commit at this time to maintaining AECL's activities in Montreal?

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleague. Although everyone understood what he just said, not everyone accepts it. It is our colleagues across the way who do not accept it. The auditor general came up with these figures and everyone can see them.

Yet, when I explain to my constituents that the Senate costs $43 million, while some industries are being cut by 30 per cent because the government does not want to invest in forestry, they find it hard to take. It is indeed very hard to take.

I fully agree with the motion put forward by my colleague from Comox-Alberni, but it does not go far enough. As my colleague from Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead was saying, the Senate must be abolished. We must give some serious thought to this.

I attended the speech from the throne and saw senators sleeping and being filmed by the TV cameras. Is there better evidence of how hard some senators work? Of course not. This scene was shown several times on television. The people in my riding asked me what those people were doing there.

The government is making cuts to forestry, to agriculture, to unemployment insurance, to everything-The people in my riding have a much more appropriate name for unemployment insurance: poverty insurance. Meanwhile, senators travel in first class, quaff champagne and run up extravagant communications bills. When they travel to foreign countries, senators arrive around five o'clock and have a sip of champagne before laying down for a nap; that is about the extent of it. I am not making anything up, as you well know.

To be honest, some senators do a certain amount of work, but 90 per cent of them are a waste of time, energy and money. The people of the great Lower St. Lawrence region, of Matapédia-Matane, will never be able to understand this.

If you do not believe me, you should hold a referendum asking whether we should keep the Senate, whether we should keep feeding senators or get rid of them. I can tell you right now that there would be a strong majority in favour of abolishing the Senate.

Following a further inquiry from the table officers, having just replaced the previous chair occupant, I will look to the government side for a speaker. Then, of course, I will recognize the Reform Party in whose name the opposition day stands.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 10th, 1996]

Very well, Mr. Speaker. I stand corrected.

These folks came to meet him. At that point, they were rudely told: "You are not important". People had the indecency to tell them: "You do not count". They were treated in a discourteous, ill mannered and disrespectful way.

These people from back home said some things I would not repeat in this House, although they are very polite. They said: "Please tell your colleagues across the way that they have no manners". The people from the Gaspé and from Matapédia-Matane call it poor manners when, after having travelled on the bus for 17 hours to meet Canada's first citizen, they get the brush off because, unfortunately, he does not particularly feel the need to exert himself since he will not necessarily find himself unemployed tomorrow. He will lose the next elections, but he will not necessarily be unemployed, because he has good connections. But the people where I come from rarely have connections.

In addition to 17 hours on the road from the Gaspé via my riding, they put in another 18 on the return trip to make a total of 35 hours on the road-a solid work week. All that to come and see the Prime Minister, who did not even condescend to meet them.

Since they could not see the Prime Minister, they thought they would ask to see Mr. Martin. Mr. Martin was not willing either.

The first request they addressed to the Minister of Human Resources Development was refused with the words: "It is a very important issue, but when people want to see me they have to ask me a week in advance". People from back home are not used to doing that. Although they are very polite, they are not used to all this red tape, because they themselves earn a living by the sweat of their brows. They work day and night. There may be a few things they do not know, but they do know certain things. They know how to be polite; they know when one can or cannot be received.

We asked the people from back home to be extremely polite. To which they replied: "No problem. We are always polite. We know all about politeness". There are, however, other people across the way, including the Prime Minister, who do not know about it.

I am speaking on their behalf today. These people have been deeply hurt. I wish to thank my colleagues from Mercier, Lévis and Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup for their hard work. They went all the way. But the people from back home are also patient. Even though they are both polite and patient, they said: "If the Prime Minister does not want to meet with us, what can we do? If the Minister of Finance does not want to meet with us, what is left for us to do?"

The Minister of Human Resources Development finally said: "Yes, I could perhaps meet with you". So the people said: "Look, we have been waiting for two hours. We still have a 18-hour trip back home to the Gaspé region". Our leader met with them and told them: "This is what the Bloc has done, what we wanted to do". We tried in every possible way-by appealing to their minds and their hearts-to make those people understand all this, but they refuse to understand.

Some people from my riding talked to me, including the mayor of Saint-Luc, who was representing a number of regional county municipalities. She said to me: "What more can we do? Will other action have to be taken, like tabling petitions? You have given 120 per cent, but they just will not listen".

The same people told me: "We are calm, understanding people. But to want to use this insurance money that we have been paying for and that employers have been paying for to reduce the deficit, that we will never understand. We will never stand for it; it is just too cruel". It is cruel, but not only for these people, who, on an individual basis, could probably wait a tad longer.

In my community, often, in fairly large families, one spouse works away from home, while the other works, perhaps even harder, at home. In such cases, the family income is never very high, which means that the whole family is affected. Yesterday, a young couple told me: "If we did not have four kids, it would not be so bad, we could remain calm a while longer, but we do not think we will be able to any longer".

I would like my hon. colleagues opposite to understand. There must be people who are having difficulties, people on unemployment in their ridings as well. I call upon my colleagues opposite and all members of this House to go out and talk to these people. I am sorry to have to put it this way, but people out there are disgusted. When I saw them off at the bus, they told me: "We have had it". And when they say they have had it, they mean they have had it up to here.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last week I rose in this House to appeal to my colleagues across the way. I told them we had brought out almost all the reasonable arguments that human reason could understand, and it seems that they still do not understood.

I appealed to their hearts by telling them that workers in Canada and in Quebec want to work, that they are proud people who want to produce, but unfortunately they are not being given the chance. The motion proposes that someone who leaves his job voluntarily would be doubly penalized. This is a disgrace.

It is very surprising to see these people, who were calling for exactly the opposite when they formed the opposition-I do not know on what planet or cloud they are living-today calling for measures that are truly insulting to the workers of Canada and Quebec.

As proof, I offer what took place yesterday. A group of about a hundred people set out from my riding of Matapédia-Matane in the Gaspé Peninsula. These were people who are truly not rich. One of them told me he had had to sell his house, things were so bad.

These people, who represented 35,000 others, came to the Hill to meet with the Prime Minister. They remembered that when he was in opposition-he was then reasonable, I would say-he wrote certain letters. So they said: "At least, he will come and see us".

I was at the Langevin Building with them. Three people were asked to negotiate, if you will, a meeting with Mr. Chrétien. It appeared to be a huge favour to come and meet people from back home, who were representing 35,000 people.

So three people from our region went to the office of Mr. Pelletier. They came back saying: "Mr. Chrétien is meeting very important people today-"

[Institut Maurice-Lamontagne, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

The minister has already clearly indicated to us that, despite projected financial cuts, the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne will continue to exist. However, it remains to be seen whether the minister will not make an empty shell out of it.

How can the minister explain that he wants to reduce funds allocated to the Institut Maurice-Lamontagne, when we know the Department of Fisheries and Oceans allocates only 9 per cent of its scientific research budget to Quebec and the situation will deteriorate further if the minister goes through with his plans?

[National Forest Week, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are now midway through National Forest Week, an event that has been celebrated for the past 70 years.

For Canadians and Quebecers, forests represent both a natural resource and a treasure which has had much to do with shaping our lifestyle, our history and our traditions.

How could it not, when forests cover half of Canada's area, providing 340,000 direct jobs and $19 billion of our gross domestic product? The economy and the life of Matapédia is centred on its forests, which provide a living to hundreds of families.

National Forest Week reminds us that we are responsible for this precious resource, and that we must make sure it stays healthy, drawing upon it reasonably so that it will be there for our children.