Jean H. Leroux

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her statement which seems very honest.

Let me deal first with the infrastructure program. It is true that program was implemented by the new government and it is an excellent program. You all know that what we need now in Canada is job creation.

That program will create jobs, but there are conditions.

First, there are small municipalities, in my riding and elsewhere, which cannot respect all of the program's requirements and have problems obtaining a program because of that.

Second, the infrastructure program will not develop high technology for the future of Canada and Quebec; let me say I am happy to mention the two together because the Bloc Quebecois is a sovereignist party, yes it does want sovereignty, but not a brutal and independent one. We wish to maintain relations with the rest of Canada. Since you are also from Quebec, my province, Madam Speaker, you know there will always be close relationships between Quebec and the rest of Canada.

However, Quebec is different. Everybody knows it. We hear it all the time. Just listen to the people sitting next to us, that is what they say. We are different. The day it will be accepted as a fact, everything will be easier. There is one important thing for the government, for the party in office. The Liberals are in office now, so they are able to consult the most intelligent and most competent persons in Canada and in Quebec and ask them what to do. If the government does not know what to do, it holds the necessary authority to at least do that.

I think the problem with our government is that it consulted a lot without presenting us with a legislative agenda equal to our expectations. As for the DIPP, all I can say is that we are experiencing delays. It is not functioning. Funds are frozen. We have the funds; now we should invest them the right way.

I think if the government is serious, it must consider the motion of the Bloc Quebecois and act upon it.

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is always for me an honour, a pleasure and a privilege to speak in this House on behalf of the people of Shefford who elected me.

As you know, Madam Speaker, my region of Granby has been hit hard by the unemployment problem plaguing the country. In this speech, I want to express my support for the defence industry conversion program. I strongly support the motion of my colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, which condemns the government for its inaction in this vital sector with the potential to create high-tech jobs.

How can the government sit on its hands on such an important issue after making firm commitments in this regard in the last election campaign? As you know and since they talk about it all the time, these commitments can be found in the Liberal Party's red book and in a March 26, 1993 press release.

What is now left of these moral commitments? To impress upon the government the meaning of the words "active", "alert" and "enterprising", I will quote the motion of my colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve:

That this House condemn the government for its unacceptable delays in developing and implementing a genuine strategy for the conversion of defence industries to civilian production, which would save and create new jobs in high-technology sectors.

I think this motion clearly expresses the goal we want to achieve, namely to convert defence industries to civilian production and create high-tech jobs. In the light of this information, I remind the government that it must honour its commitments and quickly develop a genuine strategy for the conversion of defence industries.

The main reason underlying my position is that, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war, spending on defence industries is no longer based on the initial strategic foundation. Thus, as a member of the Joint Committee on Defence, I still maintain that the amount spent on military defence is quite high and we need a moratorium to stop the waste of public funds. However, in making cuts in military spending, we must act fairly to the provinces and the various components of the defence industry.

Although the EH-101 helicopter project promised economic benefits for Quebec, we in the Bloc Quebecois were opposed to this program, but we insisted on the need to ensure economic and industrial benefits for Quebec through a project like the high-speed train, and these benefits are not yet forthcoming.

In fact, the government is dragging its feet on several issues that are important for economic recovery. They often quote the red book but they do very, very little. Nevertheless, the companies that were penalized when this helicopter contract was cancelled urgently need government support to convert their defence activities. Since the new world order began, military industries have had a rough time, as everyone here will agree.

The arms production market, estimated at over $450 billion worldwide, has dropped significantly since 1987, by almost 10 per cent. International experts say that it could drop another 25 per cent in the next few years. The main exporting countries, including Canada, are thus directly affected by this problem.

As you probably know, Canada exports about 70 per cent of its production to international markets, of which 80 per cent goes to the United States. Under Canada-U.S. agreements, we are thus tied to this market. Since the late 1980s, the U.S. defence budget has steadily declined. What will the impact be on our local industries?

In this specific sector, the most conservative estimates are that more than 1.6 million jobs will be lost throughout the world by the year 2000. That is a lot. This prognosis is hardly promising for Canada's military industry. In Quebec alone, more than 650 companies of all sizes work directly or indirectly in military production.

In Quebec, the most dynamic sectors are communication electronics, aerospace, shipbuilding and munitions. More than 11,000 jobs in Quebec's military industry have been lost since 1987. The impact is considerable.

Here are some specific examples of layoffs between 1990 and 1994 in Quebec companies that produced weapons or components: Marconi, 1,480 layoffs; MIL Davie, 2,740 layoffs since 1990; Oerlikon, 410 layoffs; Paramax, 1,000 layoffs; Pratt & Whitney, 200 layoffs; Triplex, 200 layoffs; Vickers, 350 layoffs; and there are others. This is scary! It is unbelievable! Just compiling these figures is an exacting process. Between 1990 and 1994, no less than 7,391 jobs have disappeared in those Quebec companies which are formally identified as producing systems or subsystems for military use.

These figures, which merely represent the tip of the iceberg, confirm the dramatic drop in military production for Quebec alone. You can imagine what the figures are for all of Canada.

This illustrates why the need to convert military industries is so urgent and vital for the survival of our manufacturing and high tech industries.

We must act quickly to ensure the conversion of defence industries to civilian production. The elected government has a fundamental role to play in this sector of the economy. So far, federal government support to our defence industry has essentially taken the form of procurement contracts and direct assistance to industries.

This support is mainly given through the Defence Industry Productivity Program, or DIPP. It seems that it is through this program that support for the conversion of defence industries will come.

The program aims at helping military industries remain competitive on international and Canadian markets. Considering the collapse of world and domestic markets for military equipment, a thorough review of the program is a logical and necessary step.

The most appropriate solution to help our defence industries is undoubtedly the implementation of a conversion program funded with DIPP's budget.

In fact, the House of Commons Sub-committee on Arms Export asked, in its recommendation 18, that the DIPP be extended so as to include assistance for conversion and diversification. The Liberal members who sat on that sub-committee signed the report, thus confirming their party's position when they formed the opposition. Is it possible that such a change could occur when you change sides in this House? This is incredible! It is unacceptable!

Considering that stand from the Liberals, and given the need to implement a conversion program to help defence industries, it is important that the DIPP plays an accessory role in this transition from military to civilian production.

While ideas seemed to have been developing for some time, and while consultations seemed to support a quick transformation of this program into a conversion program, it now seems that the Liberal Party is hesitant to launch such a support program. The Liberals are now undecided. What happened to them since they took office? It is hard to tell. What happened to those nice promises made on every platform by the Liberals during the election campaign?

Even the leader of the Liberal Party, the current Prime Minister, tried to outmatch everyone else in a press release dated March 26, 1993, where he said: "Canadians deserve a government which can show them the way, come up with new ideas and new strategies, and help them to adapt to change. Our defence conversion policy is a good example of how a Liberal government", as he put it, "would meet the needs of Canadians during the 1990s."

Unfortunately, I must say that all these promises went unheeded, so much so that, in his budget, the Minister of Finance kept quiet about all the new programs the Liberals had promised.

If the government does not develop a defence conversion policy for the years to come, Quebec and the rest of Canada stand to lose tens of thousands of jobs in technological indus-

tries. Our capacity to create jobs will keep eroding, and the government is very much aware of the situation.

Recently, when questioned by my colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, the Minister of Industry was rather smug and cynical. He said that the federal government already has all the tools needed to promote conversion and that the existing programs were enough to help them fill their mandate. Is this the new tactic the Liberals are going to use?

The Minister of Industry probably confused the support provided to military production within the DIPP program with a conversion program that the government has yet to develop.

The Minister of Industry should, as soon as possible, review the existing programs. He would notice a difference between what he thinks is out there and the conversion program we are proposing.

By the way, I urge my colleagues opposite to read the statement released, on March 26, 1993, by the office of the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister of Canada.

With the help of the current Minister of Human Resources Development and others, they came up with these proposals, while they were sitting in the opposition. People say life is easier when you are in the opposition, but still, if you are serious, when you are in office you try to do what you said you would do. At the time, the government promised Canadians jobs and now all it is talking about is the deficit. It was the Conservatives who talked about the deficit during the election campaign, not the Liberals. The Liberals promised us jobs. What happened?

The Liberal government has fallen into the trap. Caught without any conversion policy, the government must, once again, trust the market forces. Can you imagine? They keep telling us: "Wait and see. Wait and see." That is exactly what we are doing. We are waiting.

For its part, the Bloc Quebecois firmly believes that the government must take initiatives that can provide jobs for our fellow citizens.

A plan to encourage manufacturers of military equipment to move away from this type of production and export and onto other fields. A well-defined strategy is the key to success for the conversion of high-technology defence industries to civilian production.

Defence industries are a pillar of the high-technology, research and development sector, and our competitiveness and our future depend in part on high technology. That is very important.

A strong industrial fabric is essential to economic prosperity and job creation. High technology offers high-paying jobs and, furthermore, it uses our natural resources as well as products and services from our enterprises.

I want to enunciate the three main recommendations of the strategy we advocate. First, the government should create a conversion fund as part of its comprehensive industrial conversion strategy.

The main mission of this fund would be to improve and add to the assistance provided within existing programs, with the objective of ensuring defence facilities and businesses an adequate and long-term support in their conversion and diversification undertakings.

Second, the government will have to create conversion advisory committees at local and regional levels. Finally, the government will have to form an independent committee to examine the different existing programs that could be used.

Needless to say that this strategy must be aimed first and foremost at completely reforming the DIPP.

The federal government must assume a part of the responsibilities. When you are elected, you must assume responsibility for these businesses' dependency towards arms production.

My intervention today indicates well that we will continue our representations, and I hope that the federal government will respond as soon as possible to the legitimate expectations of businesses from Quebec and Canada.

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague opposite and I noticed that parliamentary secretaries speaking on this motion are fond of talking from an historic perspective. They paint a clear picture of the situation, which shows that they are well informed. However, as I said earlier, the government was elected to make decisions. Unfortunately, they are well aware of the problems. They know what is going on. Perhaps they should be sitting on this side of the House.

However, since Canadians chose them to form the government, I think it is high time for them to stop reviewing the situation. While this government seems to have a very clear picture of all that is wrong, Canadians and Quebecers expect it to make decisions and to move forward.

This morning, the minister spoke to us about the deficit. He said that he could not make any decisions at this time because of the deficit. During the election campaign, it was the Conservatives who focused on the deficit. The Liberals, on the other hand, talked about the jobs, jobs, jobs that they were going to create. But that does not seem to be happening now. The feeling in Canada is that we have simply traded in one government for another identical one. As far as this debate is concerned, nothing substantive has been put on the table.

In conclusion, I have a question for my hon. colleague. Does he not feel that it is important for a government to stimulate, encourage and help private enterprise? In this particular area, 11,000 jobs have been lost in Quebec and I think the government should be doing something. I would appreciate his comments on this point.

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of my colleague, a member from Quebec. I think he drew a good picture of the situation. He presented the facts globally, discussing the problem that could ensue.

I have a question for him. Is it not the role of a responsible government to stimulate, encourage and assist the implementation of policies that could facilitate the conversion of defence industries? In this perspective, as a member of his caucus, is he committed to promoting such action so that ultimately, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, we really get a conversion policy that will allow regions to survive?

As you know, 11,000 jobs have been lost in Quebec since 1988. It is most important for us that the government, of which my colleague is a member, come up with solutions. It is about time they stop telling the House they are aware of the problem, that they know all about it. Everybody knows the problem but we are waiting for the government to take a firm stand. We expect this government that was elected to govern to present us with policies that would bring about a fast recovery in this sector and the conversion of the defence industry. I would like to hear his comments in this regard.

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to tell the hon. member that indeed, and Quebecers are aware of it, there are frustrations in Western Canada, where people may have the impression that Quebec gets more than its fair share. However, I want to remind the hon. member that, among large provinces, both in terms of population and size, Quebec is undoubtedly the province with the highest unemployment rate and the largest number of poor in cities. It is a state, or at least a province, where there are numerous problems. And I personally do not think that Quebec is asking for more than its fair share, far from it.

I want to point out to the hon. member one thing which was overlooked. If we proposed to discuss today the conversion of defence industries, and if Bloc Quebecois members talk more specifically about Quebec, it is because a consensus already exists in our province between the City of Montreal, the Quebec Liberal government, the unions and the Conseil du patronat.

Mr. Speaker, the situation in Quebec is such that we must absolutely find a way to ensure the conversion of this industry. As my colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve mentioned earlier, out of 57,000 jobs, 11,000 have disappeared since 1988.

The situation is disastrous and even catastrophic. The Reform Party member did not say that we are in times of war, but he seemed to imply that there are conflicts everywhere. We must be serious and believe that it is possible to have peace. I think it is reasonable to say that we are less in danger than we were 20 years ago, and that the need for arms is also less than it was 20 years ago.

I find it somewhat unfortunate to think that we must continue to arm ourselves. In conclusion, I want to tell the hon. member that there are frustrations in the West. However, the Bloc Quebecois is well aware of those frustrations and we have a plan for the future of Canada which will eliminate those frustrations once and for all. Our plan will ultimately put an end to the constant bickering between us by creating parallel systems, in harmony. This is what Quebecers hope.

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve for the soundness of his remarks.

We, in the Bloc Quebecois, consider the conversion of defence industries to be of great importance and we think that government members too, when sitting in the opposition, believed that to be important. It seems that changing sides in the House also means suddenly changing argument.

So I have a question for my hon. colleague. I would like him to explain the position of the Bloc Quebecois and also the different stages it would be important to go through. Government members opposite keep saying they want to listen; so I hope that at some point, after we have explained to them one last time what it is they should do, they will stop listening and finally take action.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to state my position on Bill C-22, the Pearson International Airport Agreements Act.

The bill declares in particular that the agreements did not come into force, bars any action for damages against the federal government, and authorizes the Minister of Transport to enter into agreements for the payment of amounts in connection with the coming into force of the legislation.

I wish to draw the attention of the House to the last point. I strongly object to Bill C-22, which authorizes the government to pay the compensation it sees fit to private-sector contractors without shedding light on the circumstances that led to the decision to privatize the airport and to the hasty signature of the contract.

When the government privatizes public property, transparency must be paramount, as the government advocates in the Throne Speech delivered at the beginning of this Parliament. Part of this speech reads as follows: "Integrity and public trust in the institutions of government are essential. My ministers"--

it was the Governor General speaking-"will insist upon integrity, honesty and openness on the part of those who exercise power on behalf of Canadians".

The Prime Minister promised to shed light on the circumstances surrounding the negotiations and the agreement to privatize Pearson Airport. Instead, he gives us an internal review behind closed doors. Nevertheless, the study by Robert Nixon, a good Liberal, a former provincial finance minister and a former leader of the Liberal Party of Ontario, underlines the undue influence of lobbyists sympathetic to the current government.

The Nixon report contains a number of comments on the privatization process, its political dimension and the terms of the redevelopment agreements. This same Mr. Nixon says that privatizing terminals 1 and 2 is not in accordance with the government policy that such terminals should be owned and operated by local authorities. He condemns this transaction and talks about the role of patronage and pressure groups.

I would like to make myself clear. We want to shed light on this process of privatization, deals and agreements that are not in the public interest. The review of the Pearson Airport case concludes on page 9 that the role of lobbyists went far beyond the acceptable concept of consulting. "It is clear that the lobbyists played a prominent role in attempting to affect the decisions that were reached".

This is a series of troubling facts that call into question this government's openness and the legitimacy of any decision to compensate the companies involved in the case. Why compensate individuals for charges incurred by people who abused their connections? This decision is contrary to government policies on this subject. Bill C-22 deals with a very controversial development agreement which should be elucidated.

I understand that the government thinks that the bill is a way to undo an agreement that it condemns because the agreement was politically motivated and pushed by lobbyists. I understand the government wanting to avoid long and costly lawsuits if an agreement could not be negotiated.

However, despite the controversy and although the government has announced the end of the contract, why does the government still want to keep this contract secret? Would there be something to hide? Not disclosing the full identity of all parties to this agreement and other major provisions of the contract inevitably arouses public mistrust. When the government makes a decision in a case involving the public interest, I think that it has to be open. The public has a right to know all the details of this agreement and the facts surrounding the government's decision.

In the events leading up to the signing of the contract permitting the privatization of Pearson International Airport the various lobbyists appear to have played a disproportionate role.

I call on the government to enlighten this affair of public interest as mentioned by the Leader of the Official Opposition in this House calling for the establishment of a royal commission of inquiry before the tabling of Bill C-22.

As long as we do not know the roles played by the various players in this matter, how can we determine for sure whether investors are victims or actors in this affair?

Bill C-22 declares that no amount will be payable under this agreement in relation to any loss of profit or any fee paid for the purpose of lobbying a public office holder. Why then will the Minister of Transport with the approval of the Governor in Council make agreements on behalf of the government to provide for the payment of such amounts?

If the government wants to be off the hook, it must authorize an inquiry which will shed light on what might be one of the biggest patronage scandals in the history of Canada.

Initially, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport himself did not oppose the idea of a public inquiry to find out the details of the circumstances surrounding the Pearson Airport transaction. And the minister even had the support of several of his colleagues regarding such an initiative.

Only after realizing that some of its close friends were involved did the government make an about-face, opting for a simple report prepared behind close doors. The government does not have the right to demand sacrifices from the public to help reduce the deficit, to make cuts in social programs, and to use taxpayers' money to compensate the key players in these dealings, when its own report states that in this case lobbies have largely exceeded the acceptable limits.

Even if lobbying is legal, the public has a negative perception of this activity, especially in a case like this, where the lobbying took place without the public knowing about it, and where the decisions made went against public interest. Greater transparency will enable Canadians to know who is trying to influence who, how, and on what issue.

For the sake of transparency and honesty, an inquiry must be held on the Pearson Airport transaction.

Mr. Speaker, I fully support the government when it is willing to improve Parliament's credibility. I am quite prepared to support the government when it proposes legislation aimed at ensuring greater transparency regarding its dealings with lobbyists.

In this case, the government has no choice but to shed light on this issue. This is why I support the motion of the Leader of the Official Opposition to set up a royal commission of inquiry and find out the details of that unfortunate saga.

[Official Languages, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc Quebecois are increasingly concerned that MPs of the other parties are riding a wave of linguistic intolerance. Members from both the Reform and the Liberal parties have presented petitions calling for an end to official bilingualism.

I am shocked and dismayed at this continued use of double-talk by the Liberal Party of Canada. This attitude can only be described as hypocritical. They are saying one thing to their constituents and another when speaking in the House.

Members of the Bloc Quebecois do not support such intolerant and narrow-minded petitions.

Is the Bloc Quebecois the only remaining political party defending the use of both official languages in federal institutions? Is this the new Canada? Do the Liberals have any shame?

[Criminal Code, April 21st, 1994]

I would like to state the position of the Official Opposition on Bill C-8, an Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act.

First of all, this bill would amend section 25(4) of the Criminal Code, which specifies the degree of force peace officers can use to apprehend a fleeing suspect or an inmate trying to escape from a penitentiary.

Second, Bill C-8 would amend the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act to provide express authority for an officer to use force to disable a foreign fishing vessel whose captain is trying to escape.

As members undoubtedly know, this far-reaching piece of legislation has been a very controversial issue in Canada for a number of years now.

I will start by addressing the first part of the bill. The use of force by police officers to arrest fleeing suspects involves a number of social issues.

Obviously, law enforcement is at stake. For the public's sake, criminal law must be enforced and offenders must be arrested and prosecuted.

I recognize that we need to provide police officers with the tools they need to do their work, to protect themselves and to protect the citizens. However, law enforcement goes beyond ordinary police work. According to a very basic principle, it is up to the legal system to try the accused and to sentence the guilty.

When police intervention causes death, as it does from time to time, that principle is encroached upon at the expense of society.

Sometimes, it also goes against the will of the people who are asking for an overall reduction in the force used by police officers.

When less violent and objectionable police techniques can be efficiently used, it is in the interest of society to do so. There is always the possibility that an innocent individual, mistaken for a fleeing suspect, can be killed or harmed.

The population must also think about its own security. Two possible scenarios come to mind. On the one hand, dangerous criminals trying to avoid being arrested can put people at risk.

In such a case, there may be good reasons to risk causing grievous bodily harm to the offender, given the likelihood that he would inflict a lot of pain on people if he escapes.

On the other hand, when you are dealing with an offender who is not a public threat, or at least not a very serious one, public security would be more at stake if police officers were to use force to arrest the suspect, either by firing in the air or aiming at a fleeing car, instead of using less violent measures, at the risk of losing their suspect.

In the last few years, we have had to face another public policy issue following allegations that police forces are mistreating visible minorities.

When people are under the impression that the police are treating visible minority suspects differently, it can often create tense situations.

It is in the best interest of our society to reduce the use of force so as to avoid provoking anger among minorities and touching off a crisis.

So, we agree with the bill, which clarifies the criteria set for the use of force by peace officers against fleeing suspects, thus confirming the practice applied in the last few years.

Nonetheless, the use of the terms "imminent or future" in section 25(4) leads to abuse.

We would have liked the government to clarify these terms, which appear rather ambiguous to us.

The second part of my speech concerns changes to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act. Indeed, according to the Criminal Code, peace officers are allowed to use force in arresting an escapee.

We support this principle in the context of the Criminal Code, but we consider this approach not to be convenient for the fisheries.

We feel there is a huge disproportion between the various aspects of Bill C-8 and the scope of these measures.

The situation is tense in the fishing industry and the use of force to disable a foreign fishing vessel could result in an escalation of violence.

Moreover, the bill does not provide for the use of necessary force to disable a Canadian vessel, on grounds that other measures exist to track down offenders in Canada. This is an outright negation of the very purpose of this bill.

The use of force to disable a vessel is not the most efficient means to put an end to foreign overfishing. In the past, the use of warning shots has not permitted officers to board delinquent foreign vessels to inspect them.

Consequently, protection officers could be tempted to use more force, which could in turn lead to an escalation of violence.

Trying to show the international community how determined Canada is to put an end to illicit practices is a commendable objective. However, there are risks attached to it when the problem of unlawful fishing is not solved at the root.

Illegal fishing cannot be stopped without the help of foreign countries. Negotiations with the international community should continue since, as we all know, Canada cannot legislate in an international zone. Therefore, negotiations are the only recourse.

Madam Speaker, it is possible, through bilateral and multilateral agreements, to obtain the support of foreign governments in order to penalize shipowners who would chance to fish illegally in Canadian waters. Sanctions would have to be severe enough to deter offenders.

Although such cases are rare, we can put an end to this without jeopardizing the life of crew members. Disabling a vessel at sea is not as simple as it seems.

Even though we have all the necessary means to identify offenders, the government should rely on the cooperation of foreign governments instead. The amendment to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act does not give the Canadian government the power to intervene in an international zone where agreements are not respected. The only way of settling the matter is to put in place, with other countries, a system of sanctions.

The addition of clause 8(1) could prompt the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to better equip its vessels so that they have enough striking power to intimidate foreign vessels. These investments are not a priority at this time considering the crying needs of the fishing industry.

Since I do not want to dwell on this, I will conclude by saying that the term "to disable" a vessel must be better defined and that the regulations must put some restrictions on the use of force in order to prevent abuse.

I hope the government will take these remarks into consideration. The use of force involves risks that cannot be taken lightly.

[Situation In Rwanda, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the first survivors of the massacre in Rwanda arrived yesterday at Mirabel Airport, leaving behind roads littered with corpses, friends who had been killed and years of work wiped out in only few days by a senseless, murderous rampage.

While not forgetting the suffering of the people of Rwanda, I would like to pay tribute to the various religious communities who work with the poor in Africa.

I was happy to learn that my friend, Brother Irénée d'Amours, who is a member of the Order of the Frères de Sainte-Croix, is safe and sound. Since the end of the war, Rwanda had been the cherished destination of Quebec missionaries. I admire the commitment of the men and women who devote themselves tirelessly to making our world a better place.