Serge Cardin

[Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization And Divestiture Act, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, with rather mixed emotions, I rise to speak to Bill C-39, an act to amend the Eldorado Nuclear Limited Reorganization and Divestiture Act and the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act.

These days, we hear the words “snap election” or “early election” on everybody's lips. In the meantime, the job of the MPs is to speak to certain bills, which in some cases are contrary to the interests of Quebec, such as the young offenders bill or bills I consider of relative importance, such as the one before us today.

In short, this enactment relates to the mandatory provisions in the articles of Eldorado Nuclear Limited—now Cameco Corporation—and Petro-Canada.

It provides that the articles of Cameco Corporation will have to contain a 15% individual non-resident share ownership limit for voting shares as well as a cap on aggregate non-resident share ownership voting rights of 25%.

It provides that the articles of Petro-Canada will have to be amended to allow for a 20% individual share ownership limit instead of 10%, while the aggregate non-resident share ownership limit of 25% will be eliminated.

In addition, the prohibition on the sale, transfer or disposal of all or substantially all of Petro-Canada's upstream and downstream assets will be replaced with a similar prohibition on the sale, transfer or disposal of all or substantially all of its assets, without distinguishing between the upstream and downstream sectors of activity.

However, before examining the reason for the bill, let me give you a brief overview of these two corporations, which I had to do to get to know them better.

First Cameco. Cameco was born in 1988 out of an amalgamation of two crown corporations, namely, Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation and Eldorado Nuclear Limited.

Eldorado Nuclear Limited had been in existence for 61 years. It was the oldest uranium producer in the world. It was a world class business and a reliable supplier with many customers, both in Canada and abroad. The Eldorado company was Canada's only integrated producer, which means that it could transform uranium into products used not only in Canadian reactors in order to satisfy Canadian energy needs, but also exported in order to satisfy the energy needs of other countries. Modern and efficient plants were operated by Eldorado, and it owned in whole or in part the uranium mines where the ore was extracted at competitive costs.

The other partner, the Saskatchewan Mining Development Corporation, was one of the biggest uranium suppliers in the world. Already, in 1986, it accounted for 7% of the total production in the Western world. As the company had been intensifying its exploration activities for a number of years, it owned some of the world's most important commercial reserves.

Since 1988, Cameco has made several buyouts and has extended its activities in several other countries. The company deals in uranium, gold and oil. It is worth mentioning that, in 1999, the company signed an agreement for the purchase of natural uranium extracted from highly enriched uranium coming from Russia's dismantled nuclear armament. I will come back to this later.

Cameco Corporation, headquartered in Saskatoon, is thus the world's biggest uranium producer. Its customers are hydro-electric companies in 13 countries around the world. The uranium products they buy supply nuclear energy plants.

The Canadian nuclear industry sales figure is $4.5 billion and it maintains 30,000 highly skilled jobs in 150 Canadian companies. The Canadian government brings in annually more than $700 million in taxes and sale taxes.

The new Cameco company has one thousand employees and its total assets are worth over $1.6 billion. The public holds 90% of its shares, and Saskatchewan government holds 10%. The company's 57 million shares are traded on the Toronto and New York stock exchanges. Unfortunately, I cannot at this time say what the percentage of non-resident shareholders is. This is the kind of information the minister will be able to give us when he appears before the standing committee.

Let us now turn to Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada was established in 1975 by the federal government as a result of the high oil prices and the uncertain supply we faced at the time. The company's initial mandate was a response to public policy needs in the energy sector. Canada had to establish a presence in the industry, stimulate exploration in frontier areas and find new oil resources in Canada.

The world changed a lot over the next decade. Ten years later, the oil crisis was over, and it was claimed that successful exploration and conservation measures had had a tremendous impact both on supply and demand.

In 1984, Canada elected a Conservative government with a totally different view of government's involvement in the business world. This new philosophy, which meant the official end of Petro-Canada's public policy mandate, was the first of many steps toward privatization.

This new approach put an end to government funding of Petro-Canada. However, as a crown corporation, Petro-Canada could not go to the market to finance its operations. In the mid 1980s, net receipts dropped even further as oil prices came down.

During this time, Petro-Canada had to turn itself into a profitable venture; it was very difficult. Petro-Canada had a huge debt because of its original public policy mandate and, in the absence of new capital, it had to borrow more to fund its growth. Access to the stock market became essential.

Finally, in 1990, the government announced its intention to privatize Petro-Canada and the first shares were sold on the open market in July 1991, at $13 each. The markets were quick to pass judgment on Petro-Canada's financial health. During the first year, the value of the shares gradually dropped to $8. In 1991, Petro-Canada suffered a huge loss of $603 million, primarily because of the devaluation of some assets. Petro-Canada needed more than a change, it needed a miracle. It had to fundamentally review its business and the way it was managed.

It significantly reduced the number of properties in which it had a direct interest. It reduced its annual operating costs by $300 million. It went from a staff of close to 11,000 to only about 5,000 employees.

September 1995 was a turning point in Petro-Canada's history. Indeed, this is when the government disposed of most of the 70% of outstanding shares that it still held, keeping only a 20% interest. At the time, this was the largest issue of shares in Canada's history.

On December 31, 1999, out of the 222.4 million public shares of Petro-Canada, 181.6 million common shares were held by Canadian residents, while 40.8 million multiple voting shares were held by non-residents.

This completes my historical overview. Let us now briefly go back to Cameco.

In his press release announcing the proposed legislative amendments, the minister put it this way, no doubt to reassure the public.

The proposed amendments are consistent with the Government of Canada's policy on foreign ownership in the uranium mining sector and do not diminish Canada's ability to meet its commitments with respect to nuclear non-proliferation.

Given the attitude we saw with respect to the transportation of MOX, the warm and fuzzy words of the member for Wascana are hardly reassuring. I wonder about the appropriateness of such an action. Is it really necessary to go after more foreign capital to mine uranium?

It should also be pointed out that the Ontario communities of Clarington, Hope Township and Port Hope will have to manage more than one million cubic metres of low level waste produced by former crown corporation Eldorado Nuclear Ltd. at the Port Hope refinery from the 1930s on.

This waste was first dumped in various sites in the city of Port Hope, then moved to the Welcome storage site in Hope Township, and finally to the Port Granby site in the Municipality of Clarington. The Welcome and Port Granby storage facilities are authorized by the Atomic Energy Control Board and belong to Cameco, which runs them itself.

Even though the waste is managed safely in its present location, the current situation will not be acceptable in the longer term according to the Atomic Energy Control Board, the Government of Canada and the local communities. Why, while we want to attract more foreign capital, are we limiting foreign control? Is it to protect ourselves or to protect them against potential liability with respect to the environment?

I hope the minister will give appropriate answers to our questions in committee. However, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that the head office of Cameco is located in the minister's province, Saskatchewan.

Now, let us go back to Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada, whose head office is located in Alberta, was previously a crown corporation. Today, the federal government owns about one-fifth of the corporation's shares. As sovereignist Quebecers, we consider that this corporation is already owned, to a certain extent, by foreigners. The fact that the maximum percentage of shares that an individual is allowed to own is raised from 10% to 20% does not necessarily change the problem of competition on the fuel market.

What is surprising is that this bill is being introduced at the very moment when the Conference Board is studying that market. Would it not have been more appropriate to wait for the completion of the Conference Board study before introducing such changes to the share structure of Petro-Canada?

Also surprising is the fact that Petro-Canada contributed a little over $5,000 to the election fund of the Liberal Party of Canada in 1999. I suppose that when the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Petro-Canada asks for changes to the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act, close attention is paid to what he has to say. All roads lead to the campaign fund of our friends across the way.

As for the report of the Conference Board, I want to remind the House that the parliamentary committee examined Petro-Canada and the fuel industry in 1998. In one of its recommendations, the committee warned us against a possible merger of Petro-Canada and another oil company.

This is another fine example of the Prime Minister ignoring the work of his own members. Despite all the work that was done, he is trying to hide the fuel issue in this report from the Conference Board.

The federal government not only collects fuel taxes, it grabs part of the huge profits being registered by the oil companies this year. Petro-Canada's profits increased by $195 million during the second quarter of the year 2000. That is a 304.7% increase. To increase its tax revenues, the government will stop at nothing. During the next campaign, the Liberal Party election cry could very well be “We want nothing but your good, and your goods.”

Increasing the foreign ownership limit from 10% to 20% will not allow an individual to take control of Petro-Canada. However, 20% of the shares of a company can give someone a lot of power. We, in the Bloc, think that competition is one of the major problems of this industry.

Also, the 25% cap on aggregate non-resident share ownership voting rights would also be abolished under this bill.

Petro-Canada could very well end up under foreign control. The minister should explain why this should be.

The federal government identified a dangerous level of concentration in the industry, but it decided against doing anything until the problem reached crisis proportions since the winter of 2000.

The Bloc Quebecois has been demanding for some time that the federal government make sure there is more competition in the Canadian oil industry. For example, three refiners-marketers control 75% of the wholesale trade in Canada, which is reason enough to wonder if there is any real competition in this industry. The Competition Act should be amended to guarantee competitive prices for consumers. The House committee that has been poring over this legislation for a year has clearly indicated that the Competition Bureau had a very hard time enforcing the law.

Two things should be done in that regard. First, there should be changes made to the onus of proof with respect to anticompetitive behaviour, and, second, the Competition Bureau should be given the authority to initiate investigations.

Another problem with the federal government in the gas issue is that only 17% of federal taxes on fuel are invested in the transportation infrastructure. The federal government then feels it has to set up infrastructure programs in order to gain more visibility. Compare this with the Quebec government, which is investing 71.7% of fuel taxes revenues in infrastructure.

To sum up, I fail to see how this bill is relevant. We are not against it nor do we support it, but the minister will have to answer some questions. The problem I see here is why introduce this bill now? Is it because a foreign investor anxious to invest in Petro-Canada needs an increase in the foreign ownership limit to take over the company?

I suppose the Minister of Natural Resources will be able to explain to us in committee why this bill is being introduced now and why the government is not dealing with the issue of competition in the gasoline market.

In conclusion, I will quote an excerpt from the 1999 annual report of the National Energy Board:

Petroleum export revenues increased to an estimated $14.9 billion in 1999, somewhat below the peak of $17.9 billion in 1997. Spending on petroleum imports was about $9 billion, leaving Canada with a trade surplus in petroleum of $5.8 billion, up from $4.4 billion in 1998.

It is strange that a country that has a trade surplus in petroleum cannot exert any pressure on the gasoline market. It is also strange that it would consider allowing foreign control.

There are some fundamental questions which must be put to the minister. Therefore, I am looking forward to seeing him at a future meeting of the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations.

[Member For Compton—Stanstead, September 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, what a surprise this morning for the people of Compton—Stanstead to learn in Info-Vision that their Conservative elected member now Liberal defector is still considering matters.

Has he already forgotten that his new leader in Ottawa said a few weeks ago that his time for reflection was past and that he was now very definitely a Liberal?

In the same breath, he says he has frequently disagreed with Liberal policy but thinks that the Prime Minister's approach has changed in the areas of finance and health. He said “If the financial situation in Canada has greatly improved, it is thanks to the work of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney”. He is sorry to see that the public is showing so little enthusiasm for the Conservative leader, who will no doubt be glad to hear that.

The people of Compton—Stanstead will not be taken in by a member who deceived them and who changes tack with the slightest breeze. They will vote for Gaston Leroux, the Bloc Quebecois candidate, an honest, reliable and coherent member.

[Supply, September 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the Liberal member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, in which he referred to a notice of motion that he presented to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, on February 29, 2000.

That motion was relatively timid, particularly since I had tabled one on February 10, 2000, which went a lot further. That motion read in part:

—to identify and recommend, as soon as possible, concrete means to fight the abusive increase of petroleum product prices and to regulate petroleum product prices on a permanent basis.

That document was tabled on February 10. It listed very specific measures, but the Liberal majority rejected it. Today, the member said that the Canadian Alliance motion was timid. It is timid, but it is based on important values. Some people pledged to increase the tax to fight the deficit. There is no longer any deficit. We have a surplus. Now, we must remove that tax.

Then there is the issue of double taxation. This is also an important principle. Even if the Canadian Alliance motion is timid, the fact is that it is a wake up call for the government. The motion of the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik is a big to-do about nothing. It is like the elephant labouring to bring forth a mouse.

[Petitions, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition concerns the high price of gasoline, in addition to the thousands of names on the other petitions that have already been tabled in this House.

The petitioners call upon the government to do its job as far as the exorbitant price of gas is concerned.

[Petitions, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition concerning rural mail carriers.

Basically, what the petitioners are calling for is the right of association and repeal of subsection 13(5) of the Canada Post Corporation Act.

[Petitions, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table five petitions, three of which relate to GMOs.

Obviously, the petitioners are calling for the mandatory labelling of genetically modified organisms.

[The Environment, June 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, our society must face many environmental problems such as smog and climate changes. After playing a key role during the Earth Summit held in Rio in 1992, the Canadian government's attitude progressively deteriorated as regards these challenges.

In Cartagena, in February 1999, Canada, along with four other states, opposed the adoption of a strict biosafety protocol. The same thing happened at a meeting held in January, and again in Nairobi, a few days ago. A UN spokesperson even said that it was the first time in 20 years that environmental negotiations led to such a complete rout.

In this environment week, it is deplorable that Canada refuses to sign that protocol, which would establish a set of international rules to regulate the transborder movement of living genetically modified organisms.

Once again, the nice rhetoric of the Minister of the Environment does not result in concrete action.

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, let me go back to what I was saying. I touched on this issue very briefly earlier. When the public works minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations, I gave him an example from my riding.

An organization had asked Canada Economic Development for a significant grant in order to hold a special and grandiose event. Following an economic feasibility study and analysis, CED rejected that request. The organization then went to the public works minister, asked for the same amount of money, and automatically got it.

I asked the minister “When you give grants to various organizations, do you take the economic feasibility and viability of the project into consideration?” His answer was “This is not about economy, but about government visibility. This is a publicity contract”. And this contract was awarded without considering the economic viability of the event, which suffered tremendous losses in the first year, was held a second year, and again suffered big losses.

There were flags everywhere and the word Canada could be seen everywhere. For the minister, what matters is visibility and publicity. Why visibility? The opposite word says it all, invisibility. Why does he spend money to be seen? Because he is completely invisible when it comes to helping the unemployed, health and education. Since he has to be visible somehow, this is the way he has chosen.

There were many questions we could have asked the minister on that memorable day but once again it turned out to be a day of unanswered questions.

Why does the CIO give its financial support to the Fédération des femmes du Québec for the walk of 2000? Does Status of Women of Canada not have the financial resources for its women support program? Is that the responsibility of the CIO?

How is it that Createc Plus was awarded a contract for printing anti-smoking material? Is that not the responsibility of the Minister of Health, considering what he is doing right now?

Why did GPC Canada, and Rémi Bujold, receive $46,000 to do economic analysis? Should that not be the role of the Finance Minister? Why is it the CIO?

Why did Productions Les Arts receive $20,000 for an exchange between francophone communities in Alberta and Quebec? Is that not the responsibility of the Council for Canadian Unity?

How is it that another company received $20,000 for planning tours by the Canadian team of gold medallists? Does the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport not have funding available for that?

Why did Conseils et Vérification Canada receive $55,000 for the seminars of 2000 in Laval and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu? Is that its responsibility?

The CIO interferes in areas that do not come under its responsibility at all. Why? Visibility is used to conceal the government's lack of performance, the invisibility of its performance and its inability to fulfil the needs of Quebecers and of Canadians.

[Supply, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to a very current issue. The Bloc, naturally, in recent days has mentioned a number of disturbing matters, so disturbing that two of us will explain them to you and give you more details. I will share my time with the member for Joliette.

I was saying, therefore, that this is a current matter, which follows more or less in the footsteps of that of the Human Resources Development Canada. There had been criticism of the big brother aspect of this department's megafile. It was apparently dismantled at the request of tens of thousands of people wanting to see their file to find out just what was in it. In order to avoid the issue, the government said “We will dismantle this immense data base and answer all requests on the information the department has on individuals”.

Make no mistake. It was dismantled. So all the information that existed previously will not be available. Only partial information will be available. This is like what is happening with the CIO, a big brother of another sort.

There is a lot more behind the information we have on the contracts given to friends. It will be information especially that the government will be looking for, perhaps not directly from individuals, but from a nation, that is, a complete analysis of all information, values and behaviours to discover how to deliver a message that will slip, often insidiously, into the heads of all Quebecers.

It only made sense that we would present a motion on this opposition day. There are probably thousands of people who just joined us, so I will read the motion again, so that these people can understand clearly. The motions reads as follows:

That this House condemn the government for having established the Canada Information Office, which gives lucrative contracts to those close to the government party for, among other things, the purpose of gathering, analysing and collating information about a large number of citizens—

Here, of course, we are alluding to the journalists, but earlier I referred to the behaviour of the whole Quebec society. The motion ends with the following:

—and that this House urge the government to close that Office.

The Bloc Quebecois is essentially asking for the closure of the CIO, because that office serves as an agency for the Liberal Party of Canada, because it engages in shameless cronyism and because, four years after being established, the CIO remains a catch-all service that awards all sorts of contracts to help define its mission and its organizational structure.

I want to relate two experiences that happened to me in my last months on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I wrote twice to the auditor general to ask him to evaluate the CIO, to shed light on its activities, to look at its performance and to examine its operations. Had that been done, we would have been in a position to validate all that we are saying today about the awarding of contracts and about all the information that the government is gathering on the Quebec people.

Of course, my request was rejected at the public accounts committee, and we were not able to have the evaluation done before the end of the CIO's mandate, on March 31, 2000. Such an evaluation would have been very interesting and it is likely that we could not decently have renewed the CIO's mandate.

My second experience came on May 4, when the Minister of Public Works came to testify before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations. I will quote what he said “The Canada Information Office has a special mandate to communicate from a corporate perspective representing the Government of Canada as a whole”.

This short sentence does have one quality. He probably did not realize this, but he did demonstrate quite a lot of transparency. When he says “to communicate from a corporate perspective”, what does corporate mean? A corporation is free to provide contracts to whomever it wants and whenever it wants. It is for profit. It sells a product. What product does the CIO want to sell Quebecers?

The minister also said to us “I'm pleased to inform you that it has made progress on a number of fronts in helping the Government of Canada communicate more effectively with Canadians”. Communication is a two way street. There is a transmitter and a receiver, but I think the CIO receiver is much more sensitive and voluminous than the transmitter toward the people.

He was also saying “To communicate better with Canadians, federal departments need to know what strategies and activities have worked best”, to be able to use them in the years to come, in future government actions.

The CIO has virtually become a huge communications, marketing and image business. It is an image maker.

That about sums up what the Minister of Public Works and Government Services told us when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Government Operations. Naturally, we had an opportunity to ask all sorts of other questions, but as usual we got no answers. Communication presupposes a two-way street but with the government it is all one way.

I would like to know how much time I have remaining, Mr. Speaker, because there are some important points I do not want to forget. I think that I could have managed it all. As I have two minutes left I will jump almost to the end.

Members on both sides spoke about information and propaganda. They had trouble making a distinction. It is not all that complicated. In response to a question I asked him, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services talked about visibility and publicity. When information becomes publicity involving such large amounts—in the case of the CIO, we are talking about $20 million—what are the publicity budgets for all departments as a whole?

When such substantial sums are involved, tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars in publicity all over the place, primarily in Quebec, then it becomes apparent that this is no longer publicity, no longer information or communication, but propaganda, for example, “action exerted on opinion to bring it around to certain political or social ideas, to support a policy, a government, a representative”. Le Petit Robert goes on to say “propaganda from a political party, election propaganda, instrument or means of propaganda”, in other words, everything we saw in the contracts: speeches, newspapers, movies, television.

It is therefore not difficult to make a distinction between information, communication, publicity and propaganda. I think that we have everything here to help us see the difference and say that what this government is engaged in, through the CIO, is nothing other than propaganda.

[Cape Breton Development Corporation Divestiture Authorization And Dissolution Act, June 6th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, we have just finished the report stage of Bill C-11. We have just voted on the various motions introduced by the New Democratic Party, and of course the people behind those motions were the hon. members for Sydney—Victoria and for Bras-d'Or—Cape Breton.

These amendments were given overall support by the Bloc Quebecois because they addressed certain elements affecting employees and former employees and their future.

We in the Bloc Quebecois agree with the principle of privatization even if, on occasion, the positions are not always readily obvious. On the one hand, we are told it is not profitable and that they want to sell it, and on the other that it could be privatized profitably, because the local people could operate it. This is a pretty unclear situation, and a number of questions need to be asked.

First of all, we know that the future of the coal industry is not clear. From the strictly environmental point of view, we know what results it can have. From the operational point of view, more and more people are trying to use alternative energies. There are questions to be asked about the coal industry per se.

But the minister tells us it is not cost-effective. Moreover the president of the Cape Breton Economic Development Corporation came before the committee to also tell us it was not cost-effective. So the question needs to be asked. If it is not cost-effective, if the government was not able to make it cost-effective when it was in charge, how can it manage to be so as a private enterprise? What is hidden behind all this? Is the government putting Devco up for sale merely to get rid of its responsibility?

One thing struck me in this matter. Since the government got involved in the Cape Breton Development Corporation in 1967, some $2.5 billion has been spent, in money for the coal division or the industrial development division or for investments already made or about to be made in economic development. This is a lot of money.

When the government got involved in 1967 and committed itself to spending this $2.5 billion, imagine the regional and economic development this sum could have provided had it not all been invested in coal alone.

In general terms, the Bloc Quebecois supports privatization, but also supports employee protection. We support almost all the amendments proposed, especially those of the NDP.

The Bloc Quebecois opposes all positions taken by the federal government, which meddles in areas of provincial responsibility. Clause 5 of the bill provides that, even if the federal government disposes of Devco assets, it remains responsible for all work related matters, including the CSST, labour standards and labour relations.

It is for this reason primarily that we cannot support the bill. Another reason is the government's refusal to support the NDP amendments. And we can see in this whole matter the government's inability to provide solid regional development for everyone.

The Bloc Quebecois will therefore vote against Bill C-11.