Lucien Bouchard

[Industry Canada, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the first duty of any government, federal or otherwise, is to respect democracy, to let people enjoy their freedom of opinion.

Democracy calls for the respect of the freedom of those people, whether business people or anybody in Canada, to be free to express their opinions and not be forced to be federalists because of blackmail. It is not very noble to be federalists because we are blackmailed.

Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister admit that what the vice-president of Spar Aerospace told his employees yesterday is a direct result of this conscription exercise in which Ottawa is pushing business people to support the No side?

[Industry Canada, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am still looking for the connection the government seems to see between job creation and examining political views of business leaders. The document we are tabling today contains an analysis, an assessment of the likelihood of influencing members of the Kruger family. That is going a bit too far and has no connection with jobs.

In the same secret document prepared by Industry Canada, we read, and I quote:

"The threat of cutting support for world class industrial facilities such as Pratt and Whitney, Spar Aerospace, and Canadian Marconi might bring reaction and support for the federalist cause".

How can the leader of the government keep denying that Operation Unity is actually blackmailing companies like Spar by threatening to cut off federal subsidies for research and development unless they speak out on behalf of the No side?

[Industry Canada, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, now we know that to get applause from all sides of this House, you have to play hockey.

In its secret document prepared for Operation Unity, the federal Department of Industry made a list of Quebec companies, indicating subsidies they had received or will receive from Ottawa. And all for the sole purpose of urging business leaders to support the No side. By strange coincidence, yesterday senior executives of one of the companies targeted by Industry Canada, Spar Aerospace, urged employees at the plant in Sainte-Anne-de-Bellevue to vote No.

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. How can he go on claiming that Industry Canada's secret document is a routine economic report, when it actually lists the political views of top business leaders?

[Industry Canada, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, what connection is there between a minister's jurisdiction and the political opinions of the business people with whom he has dealings? And why this excuse we are hearing today, that the minister has to know what is going on in his department, when he is much more concerned about the political views of the heads of Quebec companies? I think it is pretty obvious that this is an exercise in twisting the arms of business people in Quebec.

I ask the Prime Minister to admit that with this list, his government has a tool to blackmail Quebec business leaders who, as long as they are under the present federal system, will depend on contracts and subsidies from Ottawa.

[Industry Canada, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the government forgot to mention that these documents include analyses of the political positions of certain heads of corporations in connection with the current debate, hence the importance of the use of the term "levers" in connection with the way they will behave during the referendum debate.

Does the Prime Minister not think there is something indecent about the fact that, when making this list of Quebec businesses, his government referred not only to subsidies that had already been paid under federal contracts but also to future subsidies that are now being negotiated?

[Industry Canada, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today it was reported in La Presse that a secret document was sent last March to the Privy Council's Operation Unity centre. It seems that Industry Canada made a list of Quebec companies, sector by sector, in anticipation of the referendum debate. Ottawa identifies the levers-that is the word they used-it intends to use to urge business people to campaign for the No side, referring to various federal subsidies and contracts, especially in the aerospace and defence sectors.

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does he approve of the fact that a federal department, at the request of Operation Unity, made a list of the heads of large corporation in Quebec for the obvious purpose of blackmailing them and enrolling them on the No side in the referendum campaign?

[Research And Development, October 2nd, 1995]

No, no. "How does the Prime Minister justify"-

[Research And Development, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, all but a few-three, four or five-research centres are located on the Ontario side. Dozens of federal research centres are located in Ontario. The Prime Minister should at least acknowledge this basic truth, which is that Quebec has always been denied its fair share in research and development. Many have acknowledged this before him, so he could make a gesture today and admit it.

We know that Quebec receives federal help on social assistance, unemployment insurance and equalization, but this spending does not create jobs or stimulate the Quebec economy in any way.

Does the Prime Minister admit that Ottawa's chronic underinvestment in research and development, which creates jobs, is the reason why Quebec is so dependent on unproductive federal contributions?

[Research And Development, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if we exclude Ottawa, if we forget that Ottawa is in Ontario, if we overlook the fact that jobs created on the Ontario side benefit Ontario, that taxes are paid in Ontario, that contracts are awarded in Ontario and that research networks are created in Ontario, then he is right. However, Ottawa will not go away.

It so happens that Quebec receives only 13.8 per cent of Ottawa's research and development spending in its laboratories within the national capital area. Only 13 per cent is done in Quebec and the rest on the Ontario side.

Will the Prime Minister, and my question is directed to him since he is ultimately responsible-since he will not go on television, he can at least answer me here-will the Prime Minister-unless he sends his ineffable minister who just replied-will the Prime Minister at least admit that the federal government systematically discriminates against Quebec when distributing funding for research among its own laboratories?

[Research And Development, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Prime Minister refused to take part in a four-way public debate on the political future of Quebec and asked the official opposition to give him one good reason to vote Yes on October 30. Here is one good reason among many others, and I am referring to Ottawa's ongoing under-investment in research and development spending in Quebec, which is otherwise a preferred way to create new jobs. I may recall that Quebec receives only 18.6 per cent of federal funding, as opposed to 50 per cent for Ontario.

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. What explanation does he have for the fact that the federal government is depriving Quebec of its fair share of research and development and has done so for nearly 20 years?