Roger Pomerleau

[Refloating The Irving Whale, November 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Early this week, the intrepid Minister of the Environment took advantage of the absence of Bloc members to accuse them of obstructing her plan to refloat the Irving Whale . The truth is, the minister is so incompetent that she is desperately looking for a scape goat to hide her own inability to find a safe solution to the problem of the Irving Whale .

Would the minister agree it is high time she showed some flexibility and agreed to appoint a panel of independent experts who would be able to find a safe solution that would take into account the presence of PCBs aboard the barge, something she has failed to do so far?

[Referendum Campaign, October 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today, the federal government and the Canadian establishment are putting all their power at the service of the No cause: a paid holiday for employees who want to attend the rally in

Montreal, transportation services subsidized by the major Canadian carriers, and I could go on. Even Ottawa high school teachers are using school buses to send their students to the rally in Montreal.

As the director general of elections in Quebec reminded us, all these referendum related expenses by the federal government and private enterprise violate Quebec's referendum act, since any service that promotes a referendum option constitutes a regulated expense. The Liberal Party of Canada and the federal government are supporting these illegal referendum expenses.

This rally in Montreal was meant as a demonstration of love. Is it becoming a giant intimidation manoeuvre paid for with taxpayers' money, in defiance of the referendum act and of all Quebecers' idea of democracy?

[Premier Of New Brunswick, October 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, New Brunswick dropped a bombshell yesterday, when the legislative assembly led by Premier McKenna agreed to recognize Quebec's distinctive character.

It was Premier McKenna who, at the current Prime Minister's instigation, led the attack that resulted in the failure of the Meech Lake accord in the spring of 1990, going back without hesitation on the promise made by his predecessor. The very man responsible for the failure of Meech Lake would now have us believe that he recognizes Quebec's distinctive character. Just what does he take Quebecers for?

Quebecers will not again be deceived by this man who has lost any credibility he may have had. It is obvious that those who wanted to crush the side promoting change are panicking now.

[Referendum Campaign, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the following is a comment that was made in May 1990 on the Prime Minister of Canada's position with respect to Quebec. It was said that "For a year he has made political hay at the expense of Quebecers by telling English Canada that there would be no problem in Quebec if the Meech Lake Accord failed".

And who was the author of this commentary? A sovereignist? Not in the least. It was the present Minister of Finance who was denouncing the intransigence of the Prime Minister of Canada with regard to the demands of Quebec.

It is all very well for the Prime Minister of Canada to try to rewrite history, casting himself in the role of Captain Quebec, but Quebecers remember that the person who was pulling the strings to make Meech fail in its attempt to meet the minimal demands of Quebec to reintegrate the Canadian Constitution was none other than the "little guy from Shawinigan".

If we vote no, we are again placing the fate of Quebec in the hands of the man who, to again quote his Minister of Finance, "went off to Ottawa to put Quebec in its place".

[Referendum Campaign, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is a simple one. We are 11 days from referendum day. Does the Prime Minister endorse all of the recommendations of the committee for the no in this brochure, or does he not?

[Referendum Campaign, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

On three fundamental elements, namely the right of veto, a distinct society and respect of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, there is an increasingly marked contradiction between the positions of the No committee and of the federal government.

Quebecers have a right to know whether the federal government fully endorses the position given in the brochure of the director general of elections distributed throughout Quebec with respect to the right of veto, a distinct society and respect of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction.

[Referendum Campaign, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance contends that all the evils in the world will befall a sovereign Quebec and one million jobs will be lost.

We will recall that the minister himself, along with his present government colleagues, opposed the free trade agreement with the United States because, as reported in the June 21, 1988 Hansard , it would have ``-a negative impact on many industries and communities and because it will jeopardize the Canadian economic and social structure as well as Canada's political independence''.

In fact, as we know, the FTA created thousands of jobs in Canada and gave a tremendous boost to our exports.

The no side, and the Liberal Party of Canada in particular, have always used fear as an argument against progress. On October 30, Quebecers will oppose them by saying yes to sovereignty.

[Nuclear Industry, October 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since the inception of the Canadian nuclear program, the federal government has spent over $12 billion on nuclear research and development, mostly in favour of the Ontario nuclear industry, of course. Through its subsidies worth $175 million a year, the federal government has created an industry that now employs, directly or indirectly, 60,000 people in Ontario.

My question is for the Prime Minister. How does the Prime Minister explain the fact that the federal government has provided such large subsidies for electricity generation in Ontario, when Quebec has never received anything from the federal government to generate its own electricity?

[Explosives Act, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak as well on Bill C-71, an act to amend the Explosives Act. There is of course already an Explosives Act, which this bill will amend, and the aim of the earlier legislation was, as a general rule, to ensure public and worker safety.

This legislation governed the composition, quality and characteristics of standard explosives as well as their manufacture, import, sale, purchase, possession and storage. It covered pyrotechnic devices, that is, the products used for fireworks.

The new legislation brought before us today will require the incorporation of a detectable additive in plastic explosives to enable the governor in council to approve regulations on the possession, transfer and destruction of unmarked plastic explosives. The aim is to thwart terrorism, as my colleague mentioned, and to enable Canada to ratify the Convention on the Marking of Plastic Explosives for the Purpose of Detection, concluded in Montreal on March 1, 1991.

The bill would also prohibit, among other things, the manufacture, stockpiling, possession, transfer, transport, import and export of unmarked plastic explosives, except in the instances provided by the convention and for military purposes of vital importance clearly specified in the legislation.

What is the Montreal Convention? I am asking the question for the benefit of Canadians watching us. The convention was signed in March 1991 at the headquarters of the International Civil Aviation Organization by the members of this organization. Its aim is to control the proliferation of plastic explosives used in terrorist attacks.

It covers unmarked plastic explosives, that is, explosives that do not contain a substance permitting easy detection and it requires signatory countries and producing countries, such as Canada, to mark plastic explosives, except those used for research purposes or by the police and the military.

The bill proposes marking plastic explosives through the incorporation of a chemical that could picked up by the detection equipment installed at international airports in Canada to counteract the threat of terrorism.

Generally speaking, Bill C-71 meets the main requirements of the Convention. It appears to meet all of the obligations in it. First, the bill prohibits the production of unmarked plastic explosives, except in the instances provided. Then it announces regulations governing the transportation and possession of unmarked plastic explosives. Finally, it provides measures for unmarked plastic explosives produced or in possession prior to the date the present bill comes into effect, as my colleague stated just before me.

Clearly, plastic explosives are the preferred weapon of terrorists, for the very reason that they are hard to detect. One need only think of recent terrorist incidents mentioned previously by my colleagues and remembered by many, such as the one involving Pan Am flight 103 from London, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, a few years ago, or UTA flight 772, that crashed in Africa not too long ago. More than 440 people were killed in these two incidents. One might also think of the Air-India tragedy, another terrorist attack where a 747 that had taken off in Canada blew up over the Atlantic, south of the Republic of Ireland, killing everyone on board.

We must make sure that plastic explosives can be detected in airports. That is what this bill is about. Of course, the Bloc Quebecois reaffirms its support. Especially since, based on information we received, production costs for the manufacturers, most of them private enterprises, will increase only marginally as a result of this decision.

However, we nonetheless have some concerns about this bill. First, while the convention was signed on March 1, 1991, no bill was introduced until now, nearly five years later. This obviously reflects a glaring lack of efficiency on the part of the government in

an area directly related to public safety. It took less time to set up a unity Canada group. I think this is indicative of a glaring lack of efficiency that should be pointed out.

Of course, the goal in itself is commendable and we support it but how effective will the bill really be? First of all, not all countries signed the convention or belong to the International Civil Aviation Organization. This means that terrorists will still be able to obtain explosives in non member countries where plastic explosives will remain unmarked.

We put a question to our hon. colleague who said that, as far as terrorist groups were concerned, Canada could not say who did or did not sell explosives to them. We stress the fact that the federal government is not clear, as our colleague just indicated, that explosives are obtained in part on the black market. We did not need to be told that. We already knew that this was the case. We also knew that some of them are home made. But who on the black market supplies terrorists? Who are the people operating this black market? These questions remain unanswered.

In many regards, Canada is like a sieve for contraband goods. I am thinking about drugs in particular. It is well known that, in a way, Canada is the North American entry point for drugs and certainly part of the weapons smuggled on the continent. It is a fact that certain groups are currently using this channel and that, in many cases, they are more heavily armed than the police and even the Canadian armed forces.

One wonders what specific measures will be taken in this bill to counteract such effects. Canada has problems controlling liquor and tobacco smuggling. It is therefore extremely difficult to imagine that a bill such as this one, in spite of all its positive measures, will effectively prevent the smuggling of explosives.

Explosives manufactured for military purposes are totally exempt from marking requirements, and we can understand that. Obviously, military people do not want to make their arms easy to detect; that would make no sense. Nevertheless, there is the possibility of leaks.

One can also think of the motorcycle gang war currently going in the Montreal region, another reason to be cautious in this regard. In recent months, there have been numerous victims, mostly gang members, but also innocent people.

Incidently, I want to thank a group, the Oir Rachaim Tasher Yesheva jewish congregation, in Boisbriand, for immediately coming to the help of injured persons during one incident. The compassion and the support shown by that community deserve to be mentioned.

As regards the gang war, I also want to stress the work of the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve who helped start a petition in his riding, asking for anti-gang legislation, and who organized for the benefit of many Montreal area MPs meetings with police officers of the city, including Mr. Sangollo, who is the assistant to the chief of police, Mr. Duchesneau. These officers gave us an idea of who these motorcycle gangs are and what is organized crime.

We were clearly told about the need for anti-gang legislation. The House should seriously consider such legislation. I am well aware that this would not be easy, since we would have to specifically define what constitutes a criminal gang.

That is not an easy thing to do. We must, of course, take the charter of rights and freedoms into account, but I think we must eventually find or come as close as possible to finding the exact words we need to counter the real damage done by these gangs. When I talk about these gangs, I am talking not only about criminal bikers but also about the mafia, the Chinese triads, the Japanese yakuza and the Russian mafia that is now spreading to all industrialized countries and especially to Canada since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I think that this bill as it now stands certainly deserves to be supported because it is a step in the right direction, but I think it is not nearly enough, in the circumstances, to restore the feeling of safety that Canadians may have lost or are now losing.

I would like to close by repeating a few words that my colleague from Matapédia-Matane said in his first speech on this bill, because they are words of wisdom. My colleague said this: "You can mark the explosives you make as much as you want, but unless you take real measures against violence, organized gangs and terrorism, you are simply wasting your time".

[Mining Exploration And Development, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like, first of all, to thank or congratulate the hon. member for Timiskaming-French River for tabling this motion, and introducing it in the House on June 5 of this year. This motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider implementing a new program of mining incentives which would encourage exploration and development in Canada.

When he talked on his motion, the hon. member mentioned in this House that in the area of mining, there was a substantial increase in exploration throughout Canada in 1994. However, this is not the opinion expressed by the Association des prospecteurs du Québec in a letter dated March 30, addressed to the Minister of Finance.

The letter said in particular that the government does not seem to realize that there is presently in Canada a lack of exploration which is mortgaging the future of the whole Canadian mining industry. The letter also said that it was urgent to try to replenish our mineral reserves. If we neglect to do that it will have an impact on a whole economic activity which is directly or indirectly connected with the mining and smelting industry in Canada.

I would like to say that we should make a distinction between mining exploration itself, where there was substantial growth in 1994 compared to 1993, and activities dependant on mining exploration, which also grew in 1994. We should mention, however, that despite this strong growth, we are a long way from the levels which existed in the early 1980s.

This being said, we can realize the scope of what the hon. member for Timiskaming-French River was saying and I quote: "Despite this, major problems and impediments still exist to a sound and sustainable mining sector in this country." It is in this context that the hon. member was asking the House to press the government to implement a program of incentives which would encourage exploration and development in the mining sector in Canada.

Of course, there is no reason why we should oppose this motion, even though it seems to be nothing but an expression of intent. However, assuming that the House of Commons agrees to this motion at the time of the vote, what will it give us that we do not have already?

The problem is not that Motion M-292 is inappropriate, but that it is not sufficient to solve the mining problem in Canada. In its report on the Canadian mining industry that was tabled before Parliament in December 1994, the standing committee on natural resources made a series of recommendations that all committee members, whatever their party affiliation, agreed on.

Of these recommendations, there are two that I will now outline for you. First, recommendation No. 3 which says: "That the federal government introduce a mineral exploration incentive by modifying the Income Tax Act to incorporate a change in the adjusted cost base of flow-through shares from a value of zero to the actual cost of the shares".

Then, recommendation No. 4, which everybody agreed on: "That in order to enhance the effectiveness of exploration work financed by means of flow-through shares, the feral government enable the exploration activity funded through such shares to be carried out over a period of one full year after financing".

The problem with the motion of the member for Timiskaming-French River is that, as it stands currently, it would do nothing concrete to stimulate mining exploration. It would be insufficient in itself to ensure implementation of the recommendations of the standing committee on natural resources, that the hon. member moving this motion is a member of.

If I brought to the attention of the House the committee recommendations that deal with flow-through shares, it is because my colleague from Abitibi also moved before Parliament a motion, Motion M-247, that has the same objective as Motion M-292, but would have a more obvious impact on mining exploration.

I do not intend to deal at length with the motion moved by my hon. colleague from Abitibi, but rather on the one moved by the hon. member for Timiskaming-French River. However, since both motions are very similar, I think it is relevant to speak to both. I would like to indicate that members of the Bloc Quebecois will support motion M-292 inasmuch as it does not work at cross purposes with motion M-427 which we will also all support.

I will not dwell at length on the positive impact tax incentives could have on the mining industry, since my colleague from Abitibi covered that very well, but I would like to mention that this kind of incentive has proved to be useful in Quebec, and more particularly so with small mining companies, which have a positive impact on local economies through their exploration operations.

The hon. member for Timiskaming-French River has given lots of figures, which my colleague opposite repeated a moment ago, to demonstrate the importance of mining in Canada and describe the Canadian position in mining exploration throughout the world in several sectors.

Despite all those figures, the government does not seem to get the point that the mining industry is one of the strongest foundations of the Canadian economy and deserves more than lip service. If motion M-292 carries, it will have a positive impact because we will at least know which way the government is heading as regards the development of our mining industry. And if the motion of the hon. member for Abitibi is agreed to, the mining industry will be able to know how the government intends to reach its goal.

In the time remaining, I would like to comment on statements made by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East in reaction to remarks made by the hon. member for Abitibi on his motion. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East said among other things, and I quote:

"I am surprised and I might almost say astonished that this particular motion would come from the hon. member for Abitibi". Let me paraphrase what he says. He says that he wants the federal government to pour money into subsidies for industry in Canada and in Quebec.

My colleague did not seem to understand the difference that exists between a federalist in Quebec and a sovereignist. A federalist in Quebec effectively always asks for more power and money. Sovereignists in Quebec do not want that at all. They want all the power and no money. We fully understand that being a minority in a majority means that we will fight forever, day after day, for bits of power and morsels of rights. We do not want bits of power and morsels of rights. We want all the power and all the rights. However, as long as we are in Confederation we will ask for our fair share of the federal expenses.

I will quote again the hon. member for Fraser Valley East who said: "I am surprised because the hon. member for Abitibi is a member of the Bloc Quebecois which, as we all know, is a political party with only one purpose and that is to destroy Canada as we know it by taking Quebec out of Confederation". That is a very strange affirmation.

Most Canadians actually believe, concerning Quebec of course, that we are a bunch of troublemakers, that we receive much more money from Canada than we put in, and that if the economic situation in Canada goes bad it is partly due to the political instability in Quebec. If those three assumptions are right and if people really believe them, the sovereignty of Quebec should be seen by most Canadians as a good way to solve a problem once and for all and save money, providing that we assume our fair share of the Canadian debt. That is exactly what we intend to do.

We are not a problem; we are the solution to a problem. If the no vote wins in Quebec we are back to square one. It will be 15 years of political debate to the next referendum, and I am sure nobody wants that. We do not want to destroy Canada. We simply think that Canadians should be able to run their country the way they want, without having to please Quebec at each moment, and that Quebec should be allowed to do the same.

My friend from Fraser Valley East continued: "I hope the member understands that people from my riding are frustrated by this kind of behaviour". I am frustrated too. I fully understand

what frustration means, but the only way to put an end to that frustration is to support the sovereignty of Quebec.

A certain amount of Canadians believe that we are sovereignists because we hate Canadians. This is absolutely not true. We love Canadians but love has absolutely nothing to do with politics. I love my father very much; that is love. However I would never let my father run my business; that is politics.

Personally I have worked everywhere in Canada: Edmonton, Toronto, southern Ontario, Regina, Saskatchewan and Saint John, New Brunswick. I have also worked in the United States: Texas, Florida, West Point and New York. I fully agree with the Prime Minister of Canada. If I were an immigrant from anywhere in the world trying to find a new country in which to live, Canada would be my first choice. However I am not an immigrant trying to find a new country in which to live. I already have a country. My country is Quebec.