House of Commons Hansard #31 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was minority.
Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Quebec)Government Orders
Progressive Conservative
David Price Progressive Conservative Compton—Stanstead, QC
Madam Speaker, we are really talking about Quebec. We are not talking about the other provinces. We are only speaking about section 93 and how it affects Quebec.
The member's party wrote the dissenting opinion. It really does not make any sense. We are protecting minority rights in Quebec. It is the only way we can do it. We cannot do it with section 93 in place. We cannot do it.
Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Quebec)Government Orders
Simcoe North Ontario
Liberal
Paul Devillers LiberalParliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to the resolution today. I feel it represents a positive step for Canadians in many ways.
As a member of the joint committee that considered the resolution to amend section 93 of the Constitution I had the opportunity to listen first hand to the concerns of the Quebecois and Canadians. I found this personal testimony on the realities of Quebec society at the end of the 20th century to be very instructive. As a result of 30 years of discussion the amendment will reflect the pluralism of Quebec society.
Many of my colleagues will be discussing the substantive and emotive elements of the proposed resolution. I would like to speak on the procedural elements of the resolution as I feel they explain many of the questions surrounding the change. Finally I would like to add some personal reflections on the issue.
Let me begin my presentation with a discussion on the bilateral nature of the proposed amendment. The Constitution Act, 1982, provides for amendments in section 43 “in relation to any provision that applies to one or more but not all provinces”. Procedurally such an amendment requires the resolution of three bodies: the Senate, the House of Commons and the provincial legislative assembly requesting the amendment. We are in the process of ensuring those basic procedural requirements.
Let us go beyond the basics of the procedural elements. The joint committee heard that the political validity of the resolution of any of these three bodies depended on the evidence of consensus. The Quebec legislative assembly passed its resolutions unanimously. This may be evidence of some consensus, as the legislative assembly includes members of minority communities in Quebec.
However, I feel we must look further for evidence of consensus. Particularly when a legislature is considering changes to constitutional guarantees of rights, it is critical that the minority affected by the change be aware of the proposal. Further I believe it is critical that a majority of the minority affected be supportive of the proposal.
In the case of the amendment to section 93 of the Constitution Act I believe that a majority of the minority affected support the amendment. This conclusion is based on evidence I heard during the committee hearings. Anglophones, Catholics, Protestants and non-denominational groups were in support of the change.
I draw the attention of the House particularly to the support of the Anglican bishops and the Canadian Jewish Congress for the amendment. The Catholic bishops were not opposed. The Right Reverend Andrew Hutchison, Bishop of Montreal for the Anglican Church of Canada, stated in his letter attached to the report tabled in the House:
Our conviction is that the state must exemplify and uphold the principle of equality before the law in dealing with the major religious traditions that have long been part of our Quebec community.
Therefore not only does the Anglican church support the resolution on the basis of religious education being a family matter, but it feels that all major religious traditions must be treated equally in Quebec.
I am proud the government decided to hold committee hearings and invite testimony about the resolution. After having attended all the hearings I am personally satisfied there is a consensus on the amendment. I am satisfied a majority of the minority affected by the change support it. As a franco-Ontarian the support of the majority of the minority is what I expect from any province that intends to change its minority rights guarantees in any area.
Before I move to the next section of my presentation I invite my Reform colleagues to consider the following. The Right Reverend Andrew Hutchison of the Anglican church stated that its support of the amendment was based on its firm conviction that religious education of children was primarily a family responsibility.
Given the Reform stand on the importance of traditional families and family values, why is it not supporting the amendment? The amendment is an opportunity to reinforce the role of the family in the moral and religious education of children.
I would like to mention here the impact of this discussion on my own riding. Anybody familiar with Ontario history knows the Penetanguishene area has been troubled by school issues in the 1960s and 1970s. To give you an idea of the situation in my own region, let me remind you we have seven schools in Penetanguishene. Just imagine. Seven schools for a population of 7,000. We have English and French public schools, English and French Catholic schools, and one English Protestant school and school board.
I am well aware of the divisions this plethora of school boards can create in a minority community. That is why I understand and support this initiative that will allow the minority community in Quebec to unite. I think this amendment will help minority communities in Quebec to consolidate and benefit from it.
Members in several parties in the House are afraid that this will create a legal and political precedent for the abolition of the rights of official language and religious minorities. I would like to address this concern if I may.
I agree that this will create a political precedent in amending official language and religious minority rights, but I think it will be a good precedent. Any other government—and I am thinking of Ontario premier Mike Harris who would like to somehow amend the rights of Franco-Ontarians and Catholics—would have to meet the same criteria. It will have to demonstrate that the proposed amendment is supported by a majority of the members of the minority affected.
Furthermore, this support should be confirmed not only by a vote of the provincial legislature but also by witnesses before a Canadian parliamentary committee. This is another reason why I am proud of the decision by this government to conduct hearings. It created a precedent for any future government which could be less vigilant than this one.
Finally, this constitutional amendment proves beyond any doubt that a people's needs and desires can be accommodated within the federal system. I am glad we can show Quebeckers how the Canadian Parliament has played a productive role in this amendment. After a 30-year-old debate in Quebec society, this amendment will soon be a reality. Can we learn from this in the debate on national unity? I hope so.
After 30 years of debate on national unity we could perhaps solve the problem through a constitutional amendment or some other means. Federalists and Quebec separatists will perhaps finally opt for a unanimous vote on a resolution proposal. Perhaps the other provinces will see this amendment as the result of co-operation.
If this could be a side effect of this amendment, we would have done a good job. For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues in this House to support this resolution.
Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB
Madam Speaker, I commend the hon. member for his remarks and diligent participation in committee. He is undoubtedly sincere.
I have a couple of questions for him. He and his minister both mentioned a number of groups in favour of the amendment that appeared before the joint committee. I notice, however, that neither he nor his minister mentioned the several groups against the amendment that appeared before the committee. I am afraid this rather unbalanced presentation of the committee's hearings may mislead some members of the House with respect to the lack of consensus in committee. Could he elucidate for his colleagues some of the groups against the amendment that appeared before the committee?
He said there had been a 30 year debate about the question in Quebec society, an assertion repeated by several speakers this morning. The hon. member knows that the debate over the past three decades in Quebec society has dealt with the establishment of linguistic school boards and not with the extinguishment of confessional school guarantees provided for in section 93.
He will know that this matter was not dealt with seriously in the report of the estates general a couple of years ago. He will know that this is a relatively recent proposal, one which passed through the Quebec National Assembly without public hearings.
Will he admit that there has not in fact been 30 years of debate about the amendment to section 93 before us today but that the debate pertained to the establishment of linguistic school boards?
My final question relates to the position of the Quebec Catholic bishops. The hon. member said, as did his minister, that the Quebec bishops were not opposed to the amendment. Will the hon. member admit the bishops have made very clear that they oppose any changes that would remove provisions for confessional schooling in Quebec? Will he not admit that is the actual position of the bishops? Will he not put it in its full nuance on the record of this debate?
Paul Devillers Liberal Simcoe North, ON
Madam Speaker, the member asked why in my speech and in the minister's speech we did not list the witnesses who were opposed. I think the report of the committee which was tabled in the House goes through that very, very clearly and in much detail.
No one is suggesting that the consensus was unanimous. The committee heard that it is pretty well unanimous on the question of moving to a linguistic school system. But the consensus is far from unanimous on whether it should be accomplished by the proposed amendments to section 93. There is no question and nobody was trying mislead any member or the House. There were a lot of witnesses who gave testimony that they were not in favour of the amendment that we are debating here today proceeding.
However, from evidence I heard and from weighing the representations of the various witnesses, there is no question in my mind that there is a very strong consensus that the amendment proceed. Members of the committee asked witnesses specifically, given the fact that we are removing entrenched rights, did they still favour it being proceeded with. In my opinion and in the opinion of the majority of the committee, that consensus was very clearly demonstrated.
If the member feels that I was misleading anyone, I certainly wish to assure him that is not the case. There is no question of attempting to mislead anyone. It is still my very strong opinion that there is a strong consensus in the Province of Quebec that we proceed with this amendment.
The member says that reference has been made to this being a 30-year old debate. He is partly correct. We have not necessarily been talking about amending section 43 of the Constitutional Act of 1982 for 30 years. The process is not 30 years old, so we obviously were not talking about using section 43 of the Constitution Act of 1982 for 30 years. However, the whole question of managing the school system in Quebec is a debate that has been going on for approximately 30 years.
The issue has been studied by commission after commission, all of which is referred to in the report dealing with going from a denominational to a linguistic school system. In recent years the question of the process of using section 93 has been reviewed and proposed. There were committee hearings and the Quebec legislature has dealt with it.
In his final question the hon. member asked me about the position of the Catholic Bishops. I think I quite correctly stated in my comment that the Catholic Bishops were not opposed to the amendment. They did not appear before the committee but there was correspondence filed which set out their position which simply stated is that they are not opposed to the amendment. The amendment removes denominational school boards. However, they still favour denominational schools.
I have tabled an excerpt from an interview with a Quebec Bishop saying that he was satisfied to leave it to the state to decide how to implement the required changes and he was satisfied that there were measures in Quebec law, the Quebec Charter of Rights and the Quebec Education Act that would ensure their conditions were met and that there would be denominational schools.
The committee heard evidence that it is a very strong position in Quebec society that people want to retain denominational schools. I think the political realities will ensure that.
Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Quebec)Government Orders
Progressive Conservative
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Madam Speaker, the hon. member on the government side said that the Catholic bishops were in favour of this change. No. I want to say to him that on March 6, 1996, 15 members of the permanent council of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, of which six bishops were from Quebec, agreed to the following recommendation.
The Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops asked the members of the House of Commons and the members of the Senate of Canada to weigh carefully the implications of this proposal and to indicate that they cannot associate themselves with the passage of legislation that would deprive minorities of religious and educational rights.
As well, when this was first discussed about linguistic school boards, the protection of section 93 was not even being considered at that time. Therefore I have a major concern. I want to ask the hon. member, abrogating the constitutional rights of a minority without their consent is a terrible precedent in our country, I cannot imagine that this government or this member would be part of that—
Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Quebec)Government Orders
Some hon. members
Hear, hear.
Paul Devillers Liberal Simcoe North, ON
Madam Speaker, the hon. member says I indicated that the Catholic bishops were in favour. I did not say that. I said that they were not opposed and I am going from the evidence that was before the committee, letters that were filed before the committee. I think I very accurately stated what their position was as it was presented to the committee.
However, I am not saying that at any time did they say they were in favour of it. They were saying that they were leaving that to the state to deal with.
With respect to the member's final point dealing with minority rights, I very clearly stated in my presentation that I believe constitutionally entrenched minority rights can only be dealt with when there is a very clear demonstration that the majority of the minority who are affected are in favour of it. I believe that is what we are dealing with in this case.
Jason Kenney Reform Calgary Southeast, AB
Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the official opposition to speak to the proposed changes to the Constitution Act, 1867, to amend paragraphs (1) to (4) of section 93, which provide for the creation of denominational school boards in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
The proposed change to the Constitution Act follows a resolution adopted by the National Assembly of Quebec, asking the federal government to amend section 93 of the act to facilitate the establishment of linguistic school boards.
I want to be clear: the official opposition supports the idea of linguistic school boards. We are not opposed to the creation of a better school system or a school system where groups are formed on the basis of language. However, this amendment is neither about linguistic school boards, nor about modernizing the school system in Quebec, nor about giving parents more power in choosing an education system for their children. This amendment is about taking away minority rights which are guaranteed in the Constitution and protected by the federal government.
I will repeat: the Reform Party is not opposed to the establishment of linguistic school boards. However, it cannot condone the abrogation of vested rights without the consent of those directly affected.
We have outlined in our debate in the House three tests for amendments of this nature. The first is a test of democratic consent and by this we mean not only the consent of the majority but as the parliamentary secretary says, the majority of the minority and the majority of the groups directly affected.
Parliament must be satisfied that Quebec citizens were well informed about the proposed amendment and its implications radically consulted by the government and that a majority of those affected are in favour of the amendment.
The second test that we have outlined is that the change must respect the rule of law and that it must not prejudicially affect minority rights. In other words, the correct amending formula must be used and we must be certain that we are not offending the very right guaranteed in section 93, not to prejudicially affect the rights of professional groups.
The Quebec National Assembly suggests that section 43 of the Constitution Act specifies the applicable amending formula but we do not believe it has made a case that this does not prejudicially affect minority rights.
The third test is that the amendment must be in the national interest. Parliament must determine whether the actions of one province affecting education rights may create a significant precedent regarding the educational rights of Canadians in other provinces.
With respect to the first test, the committee was informed that the national assembly and the public have addressed the issue of linguistic school boards for the past three decades. We just heard from the parliamentary secretary that this is not the case. What has been debated in the past is the establishment of linguistic school boards. There seems to be a unanimous consensus in favour in Quebec from all quarters.
However, the proposed amendment before us today has not had that kind of rigorous discussion. The parliamentary secretary just said that in the past few years it has had some public scrutiny. I suggest that what he really means to say is in the past year. The implications of this amendment have really not been seriously debated.
The problem here is that we are talking about extinguishing a right which was central to the compact of Confederation. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that section 93 represents a central part of that compact. Peter Hogg, one of our leading constitutional experts, says that it is in itself a miniature bill of rights, that section 93 was that important to the heart of Confederation.
What we are discussing here is not some administrative realignment of the Quebec school system. As I have said, that is something that we support. Education administration is a provincial responsibility and we do not object to that. However, what the Constitution does is to vest in this Parliament the power to protect the rights of minority groups and groups empowered with educational rights at the time of Confederation. Those Fathers of Confederation put that amendment in place in 1867 because they anticipated a debate like this might happen today in this House.
Many groups appeared before the committee. As the government has said, some 60 witnesses. By my count, roughly half of those witnesses opposed the proposed amendment. Most interesting is that the only groups that I recall—ordinary parents, people who were the most directly affected and who came before the committee to ask that this Parliament not approve the amendment—were those opposed to the amendment.
On the first days of the hearings we had a room full of parents opposed to the amendment. These people were not lawyers, education bureaucrats or politicians. They were parents concerned about how this would affect their educational rights. Many other groups appeared before the committee, including constitutional law experts, who indicated that this amendment would threaten and eventually extinguish confessional school rights in Quebec.
I see I am out of time. I will continue my comments after question period.
Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Quebec)Government Orders
The Speaker
Of course. You still have approximately 13 minutes and the floor will still be yours when we resume debate after the question period.
It being almost 2 p.m., we will now proceed to statements by members.
Carolyn Parrish Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to note the successful official opening of the Living Art Centre in Mississauga.
It is a unique multi-purpose facility combining traditional art forms and leading edge technology. The centre will broadcast and receive worldwide transmissions of voice and video data and will utilize three performing areas, meeting, conference, studio and instructional facilities.
The $68 million project was completed under the Canada-Ontario infrastructure works program with the federal and provincial partners each contributing $13 million, the region of Peel $5 million, the city of Mississauga $20 million and a further $30 million being provided by the private sector.
The infrastructure works program is not only about bricks and mortar. It is also about people. The Living Arts Centre is a perfect illustration of the government's commitment to the enhancement of cultural life everywhere in Canada.
I am proud to see that arts, technology and community efforts work hand in hand in Mississauga.
Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the veterans of Canada, particularly the Koncentration Lager Buchenwald Club.
Remembrance Day is not yet a week old and the government has apparently forgotten the sacrifices of Canadian airmen wrongfully imprisoned in Buchenwald concentration camp during the second world war.
I call on the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Liberal government to turn up the political pressure on Germany to ensure the few remaining veterans of this horrible experience receive their long overdue compensation for the atrocities committed against them at that time.
Now is not the time to weigh trade treaties against what is right and wrong. Of 15 countries affected, 11 have achieved satisfaction from the Germans, 2 have acted unilaterally and the fourteenth, the U.S., is pressing the matter vigorously. Canada is dead last, 15 out of 15, in getting the matter resolved. We must act now.
Sophia Leung Liberal Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Mr. Speaker, last week the Minister of Health announced $1 million of federal funding for Vancouver's downtown east side. The funding will go toward fighting the HIV epidemic among drug users in Vancouver East.
The spread of AIDS is alarming. It has been described as an epidemic. Thankfully the government has recognized the gravity of the problem and has taken action.
I applaud the minister for allocating funds to the crisis and I thank all my colleagues in the House who promoted the intervention of Health Canada.
Jean-Guy Chrétien Bloc Frontenac—Mégantic, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge in this House the determination of the Faucher family, of Saint-Méthode, and its concern for a job well done.
Their family operation was granted the prestigious ISO-9002 standard of total quality. This is a first in Quebec, as Boulangerie Saint-Méthode will become the first such business to achieve this high standard of quality.
This bakery's outstanding products are the pride of the asbestos producing region. Every day for the past 50 years, our community has been able to literally taste the care the Faucher family puts into baking quality products.
I for one believe that the main ingredient in the Faucher family's winning recipe remains its great respect for its employees and their expertise.
Long live Boulangerie Saint-Méthode.
Guy St-Julien Liberal Abitibi, QC
Mr. Speaker, the next Francophone Summit, whose theme will be youth, will be held in Moncton, New Brunswick, in September 1999.
This will be yet another occasion for French speaking countries to gather to sign cultural and economic agreements, which will further strengthen ties between participants. It will provide an opportunity to review action taken to carry out commitments made recently at the Hanoi summit.
We are happy for the Acadian community, which will seize this unique opportunity to sign agreements and establish relationships with other French speaking countries around the world.
Our congratulations to New Brunswick and the best of luck to the Acadian community in preparing to host this summit.
Joe Jordan Liberal Leeds—Grenville, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of the House an impending tragedy.
The grassroots movement known to us affectionately as the Reform Party is undergoing a major transition. Armed with a newly renovated house, designer suits and hair styles that change shade more often than mood rings, the Reform Party is quickly becoming the very demon it was created to slay.
The Reform leader now has an insulated work boot planted firmly in the oil patch and is attempting to stretch a Gucci shoe to the boardrooms of Toronto.
I suggest that we put the Commons health services on full alert because there is not enough A535 on the planet to soothe the ideological groin pull that is going to result from this, not to mention the ankle sprain as they fall off their soap box.
Roy H. Bailey Reform Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring attention to a small town in southeast Saskatchewan by the name of Redvers. It is a recipient of the prestigious five star award from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities awarded to communities that excel in providing access to persons with disabilities.
The new health care centre which is under construction will contain space for laboratory, radiology, community health services, a medical clinic, emergency, observation and maternity rooms as well as six acute care beds.
The Redvers and District Community Health Foundation Inc. is building the centre without one cent of provincial money and without one cent of federal money. Once again local initiative leads the people in my constituency.
Susan Whelan Liberal Essex, ON
Mr. Speaker, this past week, November 11 to November 15, 1997, the Minister for International Trade led a very successful and ground breaking team Canada trade mission including 120 business women from across Canada, members of Parliament from Parkdale—High Park, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Kitchener Centre, Senator Céline Hervieux-Payette and me to Washington in an effort to increase the number of firms led by women exporting to the lucrative U.S. market.
The three day Canadian business women's international trade mission was designed to introduce potential exporters to the U.S. market and specifically to export business opportunities and form partnerships in the the mid-Atlantic states.
Canada's exports to that region amounted to $11.5 million in 1996. The program enables Canadian participants to pursue business opportunities with U.S. firms through mentoring, networking and partnering activities. The participants attended a series of export development workshops on topics ranging from export strategies to marketing and international business financing.
Our team Canada trade missions are the type of leadership the government provides to ensure that Canada continues to prosper into the new century.
Pauline Picard Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, is Canada truly the “best country in the world to live in”?
Two weeks ago, the Minister of Health told us that drinking water comes under provincial jurisdiction, while the equipment used to transport it is the federal government's responsibility.
Nothing surprises us any longer, since we already know that in Quebec the bottom of the St. Lawrence River comes under federal jurisdiction, while the water itself is the responsibility of the province. Fish is a federal responsibility but, once out of the water, it becomes a provincial one. Fishers' boats are registered under federal laws, but their construction is subject to provincial standards and, of course, federal safety regulations. The shores of the St. Lawrence come under provincial jurisdiction, but ports belong to the federal government.
And now the health minister is proud to add to the “best mess in the world to live in” with Bill C-14.
Sovereignty cannot be achieved too soon. We have to get out of this mess.
Raymonde Folco Liberal Laval West, QC
Mr. Speaker, last week, the former Bloc Quebecois leader said his party should leave the scene.
At last, a sovereignist has suddenly realized that the Bloc Quebecois was taking root, in spite of claiming to be a temporary party. It is the first time that a Bloc Quebecois official alludes so openly to the possibility of a defeat of the yes side in a future referendum.
The former leader also feels that, win or lose, the Bloc Quebecois should leave after the next referendum.
Under the circumstances, and until its demise, the Bloc Quebecois should work much more seriously to try to improve Canadian federalism. It is time for the Bloc to take on this task.
Randy White Reform Langley—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, once again I must outline an excellent example of the inability of the Liberal government to deport illegal immigrants.
The Baljinder Dhillon family of Abbotsford was ordered removed from Canada in 1993 but never left the country. The family merely waited for three years to go by before applying under the DROC, that is the deferred removal order class program, to be allowed to stay because during these three years they had established ties in Canada.
I contacted Immigration Canada to check on the removal order and was told that the family's case was not even on the list to force a removal, meaning the family could conceivably stay forever without Immigration Canada ever pursuing the deportation.
I continue to be amazed that Immigration Canada has neither the physical ability nor the desire to deport people who have been under removal for more than four years. In this instance I wonder why Immigration Canada bothered to order the family removed in the first place. Why carry the ball all the way down the field only to drop it?
Rey D. Pagtakhan Liberal Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB
Mr. Speaker, this week and next the eyes of the world will be fixed upon Canada when it hosts the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum, the culmination of Canada's year of Asia-Pacific.
The forum is a golden opportunity for Canada to help APEC move in a direction which reflects the needs and values of Canadians and to expand its influence in the region.
APEC members have a combined gross national product of $16 trillion U.S., which is about half the world's annual trade. Last year Canada's trade with APEC members, excluding the United States, reached $58.6 billion.
The Prime Minister has underlined the importance to Canada's economic future of bringing APEC to Canada for developments in Asia-Pacific touch the lives of Canadians more and more as a result of growing business, immigration and cultural ties.
Canada must commit itself, in addition to continued economic engagement, to learning more about the cultures of our neighbours thereby reinforcing economic co-operation in the Asia-Pacific region on the basis of shared partnership, shared responsibility and common good.
Gordon Earle NDP Halifax West, NS
Mr. Speaker, the anniversary of the death of Louis Riel was yesterday. I know I speak on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Churchill River in Saskatchewan, who is Metis, and the rest of the New Democratic caucus when I call upon the government to correct horrible historic injustices.
Now is the time to officially exonerate Louis Riel and with it the dark cloud that hangs over the federal government. Now is the time to go beyond recognizing Riel as a founder of Manitoba and officially recognize him as a Father of Confederation.
The refusal of the federal government to acknowledge that the Metis fall under subsection 91(24) of the constitution is one of the worst forms of official federal discrimination according to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
The anniversary of the death of Louis Riel would be a very fitting time to correct these injustices.
Claude Drouin Liberal Beauce, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat in this House a piece of excellent news for the great Québec-Chaudière-Appalaches region.
On November 7, the hon. secretary of state responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development gave a highly positive report on the regional technology fund. After a mere year of existence, thanks to contributions totalling $3.3 million, this fund has made ten high-tech projects possible. These projects, in which close to $17 million will be invested, will create 187 jobs in the greater Québec-Chaudière-Appalaches region.
This initiative, undertaken by the government in partnership with Gatiq-Technorégion, will help make this region a centre of excellence for the companies involved in the new economy.
This is once again proof of the important role played by the Canadian government, via FORDQ and its secretary of state.
Elsie Wayne Progressive Conservative Saint John, NB
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the University of New Brunswick, Saint John campus, for acquiring the support of CIDA for a major international project.
The project entitled “Community based conservation management: China and Vietnam” will support a five year project that will respond to major gaps that exist in species conservation and habitat protection for China and Vietnam.
Through community oriented field training activities the project will develop institutional expertise in ecosystem health and conservation management and enhance linkages between the two countries.
This is the third international development project the university has received funding for. With the help of CIDA and the leadership of Dr. Rick Meiner, vice-president of UNBSJ, our university is emerging as the leader in the maritimes in the field of international development.
I say congratulations to UNBSJ and good luck with its new project.
John Richardson Liberal Perth—Middlesex, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to pay tribute to our peacekeepers in Bosnia.
I had the opportunity to visit some of our peacekeepers last week where I saw first hand their efforts to keep peace in that unfortunate country, enabling its people to rebuild their lives after years of war.
I observed significant progress in making it safer by ridding the country of the scourge of land mines. I met with pilots and the support staff of the CF-18 squadron based at Aviano, Italy, whose task was to enforce the no fly zone over Bosnia. I had the pleasure once again of meeting them as they return today after doing a job well done in Bosnia.
The peacekeepers in Bosnia are fine examples of dedicated, courageous professionals of the Canadian forces who have placed themselves at risk to help nations and peoples to find peaceful solutions to their disagreements. I am proud of these men and women, as are all Canadians.