Debates of May 5th, 1994

Supply

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Saint-Denis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to know that the member opposite has read our red book and is now aware of this government's priority which is job creation.

It is what we have been trying to achieve over the last six months, since we came to power. I think we have been quite successful.

Not to mention all the programs we have created, the infrastructure program has been implemented to help the small and medium-sized businesses that need our support.

I also want to stress that the Minister of National Defence has stated that the whole defence policy is now under review, including the industries that need to diversify their activities and produce other goods than nuclear equipment. We all agree that Canadians do not want any more production in that area.

The member mentioned that between 1990 and 1994 there has been a great number of layoffs. Why have we been elected? Because the previous government did not have a job creation program. Nor dit it have a Canadian vision for this country. There has been a problem in the area of job creation. We have been elected on that platform. Job creation is in the red book.

As far as Quebec is concerned, as a member coming from that province I can say that on this side of the House we are not concerned only with Quebec but with all of Canada and the unity of this country. If members opposite want to help job creation, they have to help us first with the programs aimed at creating jobs all over Canada and stop talking only about the Constitution or splitting up this country.

We have not changed our minds even if we are not sitting on the same side of the House. We are true federalists. Job creation has always been one of our priorities.

Could the member tell me why the current program does not meet the needs of businesses in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada?

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Madam Speaker, I find it amusing to see the hon. member for Shefford panic and think that things are going from bad to worse in Quebec. That would be true if the sovereigntist government were to go off to sulk in a corner and to do as it pleased. The hon. member did not do his homework. When he did his research, he forgot to read the budget. If he had done so, he would know that the Liberal government will broaden the DIPP criteria to include more industries.

I would like to remind him what Paul D. Manson, a former Canadian Forces Chief of Staff and now the president of Paramax, said about his company: "Nearly two years ago, we created a task force to explore business opportunities in the civilian sector. We identified four or five very promising areas. Our parent company also extended its support and increased our budget for research and development. We answered some calls for tenders and, before the end of the year, we should have good contracts."

The hon. member, who is a sovereigntist and a separatist, should be trying to create a Canadian industrial family, instead of sulking and trying to leave us. He should be doing something constructive and positive, such as creating interactive jobs throughout Canada.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the remarks of my colleague and I found them quite cynical. I think both sides of the House will agree that this hon. member's attitude was rather carefree in the past. Contrary to the hon. member, I think that the best that can happen is for Quebec to finally opt for self-determination.

On the other hand, you can quote all the letters from all the company presidents in the world, this will not change the fact that 11,000 jobs were lost in Quebec. Each and every person who was laid off did not necessarily write a letter, but the fact remains that 11,000 jobs were lost. What we want is for the government which was elected to create jobs to roll up its sleeves and finally get things going for the benefit of our country.

[Francis Leblanc, Liberal, Cape Breton Highlands—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate today, for a few minutes, and particularly so as a member of the government party.

Since the election, last October, the Liberal government has taken to heart the commitments in our red book, the commitments that had been presented to Canadians after much reflection and debate within our political party.

For this government, jobs are the priority. Since its very first day in office, the new government began to keep its promises and implement policy initiatives designed to create jobs, to revive the economy, to spur economic growth, all things that Canadians had been deprived of during the last years of the Conservative government.

The February 24 budget we presented to the Canadian public was a continuation of the initiatives the government had begun to put implement. There was the infrastructure program that will create jobs directly, renew the infrastructure across Canada and kick-start the much needed economic growth. In the last budget, the government put the emphasis on small and medium-sized businesses as the engine of the economy, with several initiatives designed to sustain them across Canada, so that they can create jobs.

We also put the emphasis on the electronic and high tech sectors, which in our opinion are other engines of the Canadian economy. We have started to examine several areas of government policy and activity through in-depth reviews of foreign policy, defence and social security, a field I am involved in as chairman of a House committee.

We have taken measures to build up the confidence of Canadians in political and governmental institutions. Canadians have responded, as can be seen in the polls and in the decreased contempt they feel for politicians and the government. These measures have been taken under the guidance of a Prime Minister who is a man of experience, who feels a strong and sincere passion for Canada and the future of Canada, and who sees how this country can become one of the guiding lights of the 21st century.

Quebecers have benefitted from federal programs and initiatives. The recent budget included measures to promote job creation in Quebec. That province was largely spared when severe cuts were made in Atlantic Canada, for whom defence spending is very important. It is not easy for those provinces.

The federal government took part in many joint programs with the Quebec government and Quebec firms to create jobs, particularly in the defence and high technology industries in Montreal, Quebec City and elsewhere.

It seems strange that the official opposition, which wants to take Quebec out of Canada, should always be saying, through this motion and its remarks today, that the federal government does not give enough money to Quebec and does not give enough contracts to Quebec firms. This is ironic and even inconsistent for a party dedicated to Quebec separation.

When the official opposition talks that way, it should think about the benefits for Quebecers of the presence of Quebec in the Canadian federation, and it should try to co-operate with the government in order to create jobs that will keep the economy going. It should strive to build a better Canada instead of breaking up this great country.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, whom I know well since he is chairman of the human resources committee, of which I am a member, today criticizes the role of the Official Opposition and links it to sovereignty. Before doing that, however, he talked about a few things, and I would like to refresh his memory on certain facts. He said that Quebec was spared by the Budget in terms of cuts.

I would like to ask him, after the many demonstrations made not only by the Official Opposition, but the Government of Quebec as well, if he really believes that the federal government spared Quebec when it closed the Collège militaire royal in Saint-Jean, the only francophone military college.

I will not restart the debate held earlier, but I am still anxiously waiting for the government to take action in the MIL Davie case. There was no response, as we said a little earlier. I do not want to restart the debate, but we had no answer whatever on this subject.

As for the helicopters, the government speedily cancelled the contracts that the Conservatives had made. However, unlike Bill C-22 on Toronto's Pearson Airport, which we are now discussing, there was no compensation.

Formerly, when the federal government withdrew from certain projects, it created a regional development fund, as in the case of Laprade. But in this case, there was nothing of the sort. Yet, the jobs on the line were very high-tech ones.

In this respect, you know, the member should share his concerns with us because his region is having problems with unemployment and fishing. He should himself be worried about the situation. I understand that this afternoon, he is on the other side, he is a member of the government, he does not dare to express his concerns. According to what I heard, I do not think a lot of progress was made in his province, Nova Scotia, since the Liberal Party's election, because unemployment is still very high. Quebecers are preoccupied because they lost 11,000 hich-tech jobs. It is up to the government to respond.

We, in the opposition, proposed this debate today because we feel that the conversion from military to civilian use is extremely important. Maybe it is not the most important issue, but it is one of the most important. Therefore, instead of accusing us of debating on the Constitution, the member should stick to today's issue, which is the problem of defence industry conversion.

[Francis Leblanc, Liberal, Cape Breton Highlands—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I wish to thank the hon. member opposite for his question and also for his participation in the Human Resources Development Committee, where he made a very useful contribution on behalf of his party. But in responding to some points that he has raised, I said that Quebec had been considerably spared by the defence cuts in the budget. I say this because it is true and because other parts of Canada have suffered much deeper cuts in terms of funds, dollars and jobs.

If we had followed his party's guidelines, the cuts would have been much deeper in Quebec and elsewhere. But I think that what the hon. member must remember is that, for example, on the MIL Davie issue, I am not an expert on that, but from what I understand, it is under discussion by both levels of government. There is a plan and both governments are discussing it, and that is what they have to do in a country such as ours. And that is what we need in order to find solutions to our problems. With that, I think the hon. member should, as he has been doing on the committee, and his party also should participate constructively in solutions that we must all bring to the problems, not only in Quebec, but in other areas of this country as well.

[Margaret Bridgman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member this. The motion relates to the unacceptable delays in converting the national defence industry to civilian production, but minimum reference was made to that actual approach in his presentation.

I would like him to expand on that theme a little bit, if indeed there is a program along this line and if there is some delay in this that could possibly be speeded up.

[Francis Leblanc, Liberal, Cape Breton Highlands—Canso, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her question. To my knowledge the process of defence conversion is well under way, as has been mentioned by previous speakers. The government is assisting this process.

I did not feel the need to go into a great deal of detail since those points have already been made by those closer to the issue than myself.

We are well aware that parallel to a restructuring in the defence sector, which is proceeding and which will be informed by the debate and by the review on defence policy now taking place, as well as other initiatives which the government is taking to promote the high technology and information sectors of our economy, that we will assist and support the conversion of industries currently developed to focus mainly on military production, into other activities.

It is not something that takes place overnight. It is a process in which the government is assisting. We are not following the Reform Party's approach which would have been, as I understood it, not to cut defence and not to support conversion, which I find rather contradictory certainly in the light of the changes that are taking place not only in Canada but around the world in this very important sector of our economy.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Seeing no further members rising-

Since the debate is over, under Section 81(19) of the Standing Orders, the proceedings on the motion before the House are terminated.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

We will suspend temporarily to the call of the Chair when we will take the proceedings on the adjournment motion.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 5.25 p.m.)

The House resumed at 5.32 p.m.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Bernard St-Laurent, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question would probably be for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Development of Human resources.

Since February 20, 400 employees of the QNS & L of Sept-Îles in my riding of Manicouagan are locked out. Federal law does not forbid the employer, the IOC mining company, to hire scabs, which naturally makes the situation extremely tense and even ready to explode.

Since nothing hinders its activities, the company refuses to negotiate with its employees even if they want to work.

I would like to ask the Liberal government if they agree that the absence of a federal anti-scab law is the reason for the deterioration of negotiations between QNS & L and local 9344 of the steel workers' union. I would also ask the government if they intend to intervene in that labour dispute and thus help the workers?

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond on behalf of the government to the hon. member's question and I

thank him for taking such an interest in the workers in his constituency.

The question of restricting the use of replacement workers during legal work stoppages raises a number of complex issues, including the need to ensure that necessary services are provided to the Canadian public. Protecting the public interest is of particular relevance in the federal jurisdiction as the Canada Labour Code governs many industries which provide necessary services.

While the code does not prohibit the use of replacement workers, it does provide protection for workers engaged in legal work stoppages. The code prohibits an employer from disciplining an employee for engaging in a legal work stoppage. As well, an employer cannot discipline an employee for refusing to perform the duties of another employee who is involved in a legal work stoppage.

Once a work stoppage is terminated, employees are entitled to return to their employment in preference to any persons hired to replace them.

Despite the complex nature of labour relations within federal jurisdiction, the existing system generally works as intended. Most collective bargaining negotiations are settled by the parties in direct negotiations. Of those that do require conciliation officer assistance, more than 90 per cent-many people do not realize this, Madam Speaker-are settled without a work stoppage.

Part I of the Canada Labour Code has been designed to balance the rights and responsibilities of labour and management. This careful balance ensures that the collective bargaining system functions effectively in the vast majority of cases. For this reason it is important to consider the issue of restricting the use of replacement workers during work stoppages only in the context of a comprehensive review of the code.

At a future date in the context of the full review, extensive consultations will be held and full consideration will be given to all representations on this subject.

I hope this answers the hon. member's concerns.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a bit reluctantly and a bit, if I may say, obscenely, that I would ask the following question to the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs, because of the horror and the deep sadness of the intolerable events that are occurring in Rwanda. It is really hard for us, here, in this House, to imagine the situation out there. Let us just think about the 1,500 Rwanda nationals who live here, in Canada, and fear for the life of their families and friends.

I know the Canadian government is taking action in this very difficult situation. I asked the minister the other day if it was not possible to conceive of a surgical strike, a surgical operation whereby someone could go into Kigali and at least allow the innocent civilians who are trapped there in this incredible situation an escape route.

I asked the minister to use his best efforts to see whether through the United Nations this could be done. We have heard on the news that the United Nations is talking about this. Well, the talking is going on and the killing is going on.

We know that this situation requires a regional solution. We know that the Organization for African Unity is there. The Organization of African Unity needs some political will behind it. The Canadian government has earned a great deal of respect and goodwill in Africa. It can provide a political impetus to the process. It can also provide logistical support to the process.

What is being done at this time to try to resolve this situation? I have spoken of a surgical operation and providing the logistical and political motivation to the Organization of African Unity so it is able to step forward. We can give it the strength, give it the ability to carry out an operation which only it can achieve.

I would like to end my question, Madam Speaker, the way I started it. Africa is far away, but I believe that what we will do in this situation will determine how that Canada will respond in similar situations that are likely to occur in this more and more unstable and troubled world.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately the civil war continues to claim numerous lives in Rwanda. We are in contact with the UN, the Organization of African Unity, friendly countries and other NGOs in order to determine how best to come to the aid of the Rwandan people.

Next week the Prime Minister will be meeting with the president of the international committee of the Red Cross to exchange views on the provision of humanitarian assistance.

CIDA has already provided $3 million in emergency aid since April's outbreak of violence. General Dallaire I must point out again continues to play a key role in leading the United Nations assistance mission to Rwanda. As an intermediary between the warring factions and as a participant in the humanitarian operations he has done his utmost to attempt to obtain a ceasefire with the assistance of the other seven Canadian soldiers.

Before deciding what action to take, the Security Council is awaiting a reply from the African countries to the Secretary-General's request for assistance. Canada's eventual contribution will be considered in light of the Security Council's decision.

The Security Council is apparently leaning toward a regional solution with OAU participation funded by the United Nations. The RPF and representatives of the government have travelled to Tanzania to negotiate a ceasefire but are not talking to one another. However, they talk separately to the Tanzanian facilitator.

The Department of Foreign Affairs received the Rwandan ambassador earlier this week to encourage his government to negotiate in good faith and end the killing once and for all. A similar message has been transmitted to the RPF via his representative in New York. Politicians of both sides were told that Canada will have a long memory toward those who exert responsibilities and do not use their power to put an end to these massacres.

The Canadian Forces Hercules operating out of Nairobi into Kigali was shot at this morning after landing in Kigali. There were no injuries and damage was superficial. Flying has temporarily ceased until the situation at the airport has stabilized.

I thank the hon. member for Rosedale for bringing this crisis to the attention of Canada's Parliament. I also want to congratulate him on the excellent work he is doing in the whole area of foreign affairs.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Madam Speaker, last April 26, I questioned the Minister of Public Works and Government Services about the purchase of flu vaccine. His answer reflected his decision on that issue. However, everything was not said about the purchase of that vaccine. There are still some questions left concerning the role of the minister as buy broker for 4 million units of vaccine for the benefit of the provinces and territories. I would like to state a few disturbing and somewhat troubling facts about the process which led to the federal government's decision on that issue.

In 1993, the contract for the supply of the flu vaccine was awarded entirely to Bio Vac. The call for tenders for 1994 was issued on December 8, 1993. The tender closing date was January 7, 1994 at 2 p.m.

Two bids were received; Bio Vac from Laval was offering the vaccine at $1.70 per unit and Connaught from Toronto was offering a made in the U.S.A. vaccine at $1.46 per unit.

Connaught's bid being lower, the federal minister who bought the vaccine seemed to prefer its American vaccine. That is when dumping allegations were made to the effect that Connaught was selling this very vaccine for close to $3 in the United States, but charging us $1.46 for it. Faced with this dumping issue the minister extended the bidding period from January 7 to 18. At that time, we were well aware the government was hesitant and delaying its decision. We knew the situation was rather tricky considering that jobs were at stake, as well as a large investment in biotechnology, proposed by Bio Vac in Laval.

Another extension was announced, from January 18 to February 3. All this time, the Minister was under pressure to rapidly award the contract to BioVac. In a letter dated January 27, the Quebec Minister of Industry, Commerce and Technology asked Minister Dingwall to decide quickly in favour of BioVac.

On March 25, the minister told the House that he was looking for a Canadian solution to a serious Canadian problem. On April 20, the minister announced that he had decided to split the difference and that his Canadian solution was to buy two million American vaccines. The minister, as a Canadian broker, was responsible for the lay-off of 26 employees with his Canadian solution, jeopardising at the same time a $32 million investment in biotechnology in Laval.

This unacceptable decision raises some questions. What explanation can the minister give for the fact that his negotiations increased the average cost of the vaccine from $1.58 to $1.77, causing an additional expense of more than $750,000 to taxpayers?

Second, given that the minister will now pay $1.77 per dose, why did he refuse, on January 7, 1994, at the close of the first call for tenders, to award the full contract to BioVac at $1.70 per dose?

Third, can the minister tell us why, as a Canadian broker, he buys American vaccines at a cost of $1.69 per dose while BioVac's initial bid was $1.70? How can he explain such a cheeseparing saving of 1 cent on two million doses of vaccine, or $20,000, compared to 26 jobs lost? Has the minister analyzed the economic cost of these 26 job losses? Finally, why is he buying vaccines made in the U.S.A. when they could be entirely produced in Canada? The minister's Canadian solution is a bad joke.

To add a final touch to this already gloomy picture, rumour has it that the minister asked BioVac to sign a letter stating its satisfaction with the deal. What unmitigated nerve on the part of the minister!

The federal broker-minister is not transparent in this case. He acted in such a way that he penalized a Canadian firm and disregarded the taxpayers' interests. His decision is senseless and thoughtless. We ask the minister to disclose all the facts and to table, if he has the courage to, all documents pertaining to this case.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Before recognizing the hon. parliamentary secretary, I just want to remind the hon. member for Laurentides that she should not use the name of a minister but his or her title instead.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to respond to the hon. member and clarify yet again the federal government's role in this important matter.

All members will surely agree that the availability of influenza vaccine for school children and the elderly across Canada is an issue which should be far removed from partisan political considerations. The health and safety of Canada's children and the elderly is this government's first priority. I hope the same is true for my friend across the floor.

I am proud of the role that the department of the minister to whom I am parliamentary secretary and the federal government have played for the past twenty-one years on behalf of the provinces and territories.

With Public Works and Government Services acting as the purchasing agent of the vaccine on behalf of a joint federal-provincial-territorial committee, we have been able to achieve the economies of scale which bulk purchases represent. The price per dose for one large national order is lower than if a number of smaller purchases are made by the different jurisdictions.

The result is a sterling demonstration of joint federal-provincial-territorial cooperation and efficient use of taxpayers' dollars.

Members should note that the value of these purchases is now approximately $7 million per year, of which 99 per cent is paid for by the provinces and territories. The federal government uses and pays for less than 1 per cent of the vaccine.

As has been announced in this House on several occasions, and following a competitive process, an agreement in principle was concluded on April 13, 1994, between the federal-provincial-territorial committee and two Canadian drug manufacturers. The contracts will be split 50/50 between IAF BioVac in Laval, Quebec, and Connaught Laboratories in Willowdale, Ontario. These contracts are scheduled to be signed later this month. I should point out to the House that the hon. member mentioned that there was a significant reduction in one particular year, but if we look at the average for the last three years, the proportion has gone from 38 per cent then to 50 per cent now. That is 12 per cent more.

Prices are lower than in past years, and they are going down. This year's price of $1.77 per dose is lower than the 1992 and 1993 prices.

To reiterate, both companies, the provinces and territories have agreed to this arrangement. In questioning the government on this issue, the member and her party have made a number of factual errors. If one did not know better, one might conclude that there is a deliberate attempt to mislead members of this House and the Canadians we represent.

I sincerely hope that this is not the case.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, on April 22, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister a question about the federal contribution to Quebec 2002. That was a two-part question. First, I asked her when her government would appoint a negotiator to determine with Quebec 2002 the amount of funding needed.

"Soon", answered the Deputy Prime minister. On this issue, I am quite satisfied, since the daily newspaper Le Soleil reported, on April 30, that the federal government had appointed, a day or two before, Mr. Laurent Tremblay, executive director of the Quebec office of the Department of Canadian Heritage, to act as spokesperson for the federal government. One week is not that bad a delay and we are satisfied with this part of the answer.

But we fail to see why it took six months and a question in the House for the federal government to reply to an organization's request. Six months is a long time. Will we need to press the government in the House on all issues so that they finally reply to organizations' requests?

We were satisfied with the answer we got this time. A negotiator was appointed within a week. Unfortunately, negotiations have not started yet and the deadline for Quebec 2002 has not been changed. Indeed, the final bids must be in by August 18. They would like a definite answer from the federal government within the next month, by the middle of June.

That was the second part of my question. I asked the Deputy Prime Minister if she was prepared to give a mandate to a negotiator modelled on what was done for Calgary in terms of federal assistance when it bid on the 1988 Winter Games. I have not received an answer to my question, either from the government or from the negotiator.

I would like to remind this government that although governments do come and go, it does have some responsibility since in 1992, the former prime minister did make a verbal commitment. However, since a new government is in office, this commitment needs to be reaffirmed and confirmed, since we are dealing with relatively tight deadlines.

Calgary received $240 million in financing guarantees. I cannot understand why the federal government is so reluctant to commit to a similar amount when a study has shown that this project would generate in the neighbourhood of $200 million in terms of direct and indirect jobs, the GST and so on. Why is the government taking so long to decide when it could earn these

kinds of revenues? Quebec is asking for equal consideration for the 2002 Games, that is $240 million in financing guarantees, without any indexation.

This financial guarantee is extremely important to the residents of the Quebec City region in terms of helping them prepare and present their bid for the Olympic Games. They need some assurance that federal assistance will be forthcoming. A great many concerns are being expressed at the local level. Without assurances of the usual government assistance, people are getting worried.

I hope that I will receive a clearer answer today than I did last time.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, on several occasions in the past few months, the government of Canada has expressed support for the group of Quebec residents promoting Quebec City's bid to host the 2002 Olympic Games. This is a very important issue which must be considered carefully to ensure the success of the entire operation.

The federal government has already committed $2.8 million toward supporting Quebec's international bid efforts before the International Olympic Committee. The Minister of Canadian Heritage led a Canadian delegation in February to Lillehammer while promoting Quebec's bid for the winter games.

The federal government's financial commitment could add up to several hundred million dollars. You will agree this is a substantial amount. That is why this commitment has to be considered carefully beforehand. Not only has the Minister of National Heritage asked his officials to work diligently on this, but before a final answer can be given to the organizing committee, he will have to consult with his Cabinet colleagues whose departments will be involved.

Hosting the Olympic Games in Quebec City in 2002 requires major financial support from the various levels of government, but this project must also receive unequivocal support from the local people; without this support, holding a sports event of that magnitude would be unthinkable.

IOC will make its final decision in Budapest in June 1995, after making a preselection in January 1995 when it will invite four finalists to pursue their bids.

The member can rest assured that the minister is taking the August 18, 1994 deadline for the preselection applications into account. An answer will be announced as soon as possible.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

It being 5.59 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 5.59 p.m.)