Réal Ménard

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, can I count on the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands' friendly support? It would motivate me in my presentation. I would have liked to speak to a bill more concerned about fighting poverty.

On my way to the House from my office, I was thinking that, instead of recycling Bill C-96, a bill that was roundly condemned by just about everyone in Quebec, the Minister of Human Resources Development would have enjoyed greater support from us if he had tabled a bill with two objectives.

The first objective would have been to take steps to fight poverty and the second one, to give back to Quebec some 25 manpower training programs duplicating provincial initiatives in this area, because $250 million is being wasted or not used as efficiently as possible.

Why talk about poverty in 1996? Why should we, as members of Parliament, talk about poverty when the minister is about to put forward a centralizing bill? May I remind you that, by and large, government members took little notice of the annual report tabled a few days ago by the National Council of Welfare, which-I think it is important to remember this-pointed out that, globally, the number of poor people in society is not going down.

The government majority may act as though this was not an issue but, for all those with a social conscience-and God knows that includes the opposition-the fact is that even though people in our society are living longer, the poverty rate is rising.

In Canada, poor people-that is to say those who have to spend 56 per cent of their income on basic necessities, such as food, clothing and housing-according to Statistics Canada, are considered as such when they live in a large urban center and have to spend 56 per cent of their income on clothing, food and housing.

Looking at poverty rates in Canada, while 15 per cent of the population was living under the poverty line in the 1980s, 14 years later, 16.6 per cent of Canadians are still living in extremely difficult conditions and can be considered as poor.

Why did the minister and his government not look into this matter? Let me remind the House that the National Welfare Council prefaced its remarks by saying-I realize that some parliamentarians may not like to hear this, but let us nonetheless bear in mind the opening line of the council's press conference and related press release, which said: "Governments should add combatting poverty to the list of immediate economic priorities".

When was the last time we heard any member of this cabinet protest against the fact that such a situation is tolerated in a society like ours, where resources are plentiful, new production technologies available and a gross national product of about $750 billion? Why is this situation being tolerated? How can this government allow that? In philosophical terms, it means something to be a liberal. But what did these Liberals do, those Liberals who, in the 1960s, were calling upon us to live in a just society, an increasingly just society? What does it mean for this Liberal government, in

1996, to live in a just society, an increasingly just society, when poverty rates are allowed to raise as high as 16 per cent?

The National Council of Welfare which, as we will see later, the government is about to muzzle with Bill C-11, tells us that 4.8 million people live at the poverty level. It must be understood that poverty, like other phenomena in our society, is not evenly spread.

Single parents are hardest hit. Three times out of four, it is the woman who is alone, often in difficult conditions, to raise her family. The reality is that, in 67 per cent of the cases, it is these women who are hit hard and who suffer from poverty.

Mr. Speaker, you may wonder what these comments have to do with Bill C-11. As you know, since I became a member of this House, I never allowed myself to be out of order. The connection is the following: had the minister taken a good look at the situation, he would have realized that we cannot afford to have two levels of government investing in programs which are similar in many respects.

Let me just give you the example of Quebec. Quebec employment minister Louise Harel, who happens to be the MNA for my riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, told us during the last referendum campaign that the province of Quebec alone spends $10 billion on its labour market policies. If you take the Quebec territory for the purpose of this comparison, relatively speaking this is more than what is invested by all OECD countries.

As you can see, the problem is not a lack of money. Considerable resources are allocated to labour market programs. The problem is the duplication of resources.

The minister is asking us to pass a bill which, for all intents and purposes, seeks to allow federal involvement in areas over which this government has no mandate. Try for a moment to imagine one of the 33 Fathers of Confederation coming back here and trying to understand what provision of the Constitution Act gives this government the authority to get involved in the area of labour or manpower.

Yet, if we were to accept this bill, the human resources branch would get involved, as it does unfortunately too often, in income security, post-secondary education, social welfare and student loans.

On the train earlier this week I read-maybe you heard about it because I know you have a sharp mind and that nothing escapes you in social matters-the Fortin report, which was commissioned by Quebec's minister of income security. The economist Pierre Fortin is not a research officer for the Bloc. Moreover, he has never declared himself in favour of sovereignty. You will be surprised, but even more disappointed, to see the analysis made in the Fortin report. I take the liberty of quoting from it, with the consent of my colleagues.

Part of the report reads as follows: "The federal government has already reacted to its own financial crisis in several ways. Of course, as we very well know, the federal government's debt is rather astronomical, and its deficit out of control". It goes on to say: "Three federal measures directly affect income security in Quebec. First, access to unemployment insurance benefits has been reduced in 1990, 1993 and 1994". In fact, Mr. Fortin should or could have gone even further back to 1988, when the unemployment insurance program was first attacked by the now infamous Conservatives.

The report reads: "For the year 1996-97, a cumulative reduction of 15 per cent of transfers to provinces under the CHST has been announced. Third, the elimination of the Canada Assistance Plan in 1996 has been announced". Hon. members will remember that, under CAP, Ottawa used to share the cost of welfare programs fifty-fifty with the provinces. The most interesting part in this report is that it estimates that the federal retrenchment-in other words, the kind of policy being adopted here with regard to unemployment insurance-will create a very heavy burden for Quebec because 70,000 households will go onto income security if the bill is not amended. The direct and indirect costs of this will not translate into a deficit, but into unforeseen expenses of $1 billion for the province. All of this, because of the offloading the federal government is doing. That is how harmful this system is.

In a system such as this, it is getting extremely difficult, even for the best Quebec government-and I think Quebec has a pretty good government right now-to plan effectively and to abide by its budgetary decisions, because the federal government can at any moment, without prior notice and without negotiating anything, wreak havoc with Quebec public finance. That is exactly what happened during the last three recessions.

As many have said before and as the hon. member for Mercier put it so eloquently, this bill which the government side wants us to pass is unanimously opposed. It is hard to think of another bill that brought together, in a unanimous show of displeasure, the employers, the unions, and various associations and co-ops.

What I am saying is so true that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, a lawyer by profession-not his best quality, but then it was his choice-will perhaps want to raise a question of order at the end of my speech to have this document tabled. Should that be the case, I would be glad to table a resolution concerning the first version of this bill, numbered C-96, adopted by the Société

québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, whose work the hon. member from Kingston may be following.

Pursuant to this unanimous resolution, the tripartite board of the Société, made up of representatives from the unions, the employers and the Quebec government, is asking the federal government to take a very praiseworthy initiative, which meets the consensus reached in Quebec, and to give back to the province about 25 programs it currently manages.

This is no small achievement when a non-political organization, authorized and mandated by the government of Quebec to review the labour market policies, has its board, where the Bloc is not represented of course, pass a unanimous resolution to urge the federal government to give back the areas of jurisdiction related to manpower.

What are we seeing instead? How can the human resources minister be so insensitive, ill-advised and confused as to fail to recognize that by passing and supporting Bill C-11, we would thoroughly not only violate Quebec's interests but a consensus, which is a sacred thing in democracy.

If all this was only academic, there would be no reason for concern. These would only be rhetoric debates that would have nothing to do with the day-to-day life of our fellow citizens.

Here are some of the consequences resource duplication in the management of labour training programs can have. First, as it is now well known, there are 25 manpower training programs in Ottawa and 25 others in Quebec.

When his party was in power in Quebec, former minister Bourbeau, a Liberal, estimated that human resource duplication costs us $275 million that could be put to a better use.

Even more dramatic is the fact that the system's inconsistency is such that, at this very moment, people really need help, really need training. You know full well that, as we near the year 2000, more and more the jobs that will be created will require 13, 14 or 15 years of schooling. This is a fact.

My father, who is almost 60, worked all his life for the same company. He succeeded in earning his life, supporting his family and making his children happy, but he spent all his working years with only one company.

I am only 33 years old, or rather I will be on May 13, and I already have three careers to my name. It is said that in the year 2000, people will accumulate five careers. That is why continuing education is so vital. It is not true that once you have a university degree or a technical of vocational diploma you will have the same job for all your working life without having to go through adjustment periods. On the contrary, nobody, in the young generation, can think that he or she will have only one employer for all his or her life.

We will be committing a sin, a crime if we do not establish a manpower training system that is more rational, more coherent, and is based on the single-window concept.

This is so true that, at this very moment, there are approximately 25,000 people on the waiting lists in Quebec. There are 25,000 people in Quebec who, at different levels, need to improve their skills, who need to acquire experience, who need guidance services, but who are deprived of this resource, who are deprived of the assistance to which they are entitled because the system is inefficient.

You will ask: "Yes, but did the minister learn the lesson?" No, this minister is stubborn. This minister is looking ahead without concerning himself with what is going on in his environment. All Liberals are not like him, but I must say a majority of them seems to be of that type.

We can only wish, and anybody in their right mind would agree, that the minister will realize that the best thing that can happen to Quebec is that he changes his mind, that he does not authorize, as proposed in Bill C-11, various bodies which do not represent the Government of Quebec to obtain mandates directly from the Department of Human Resources Development, that he respects Quebec's jurisdiction and that he contributes.

He would become famous should he accept to put an end to duplication and work towards the establishment of a single window, as he has been asked to do by Quebec's Minister of Employment and Concerted Action, Louise Harel. This would ensure a more productive use of the resources that are available in the system, because it is absolutely wrong to suggest a lack of resources as an excuse. That is the challenge facing a minister who has been too stubborn until now.

[Points Of Order, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, today has been a very eventful day. So I would like to thank our collaborators behind the scenes, especially Sylvain Gauthier, who kept his cool under pressure.

As the parliamentary secretary knows, we support Bill C-3. It might be useful to remind those listeners who have just tuned in that the purpose of Bill C-3 is to devolve responsibility for labour relations to the provinces that will ask for it through regulatory negotiations. I think we should also remind them that bills such as this one are related to the Canada Labour Code, an area from which the federal government is willing to withdraw.

This bill results from a ruling made by the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court. In 1993, the Supreme Court ruled in response to an appeal filed by the union that part I of the Canada Labour Code governing labour relations applies to the employees of nuclear plants, including Ontario Hydro.

It is important to keep this in mind because Parliament has a duty to adjust to court rulings. Through this bill, Parliament is correcting a situation that would have been extremely harmful as it would have created a legal vacuum. The parliamentary secretary referred to it in the case of New Brunswick and Quebec. This situation would have put us in an uncomfortable situation that no one wants by allowing two different labour systems to coexist.

We must remember that it makes a lot of sense to ask the provinces to define, frame and apply provincial legislation in this area, as the Ontario government has done for 50 years in the area of nuclear energy, for example. So we must commend what the federal government has done by trying to maintain the status quo.

We must acknowledge that Bill C-3 concerns not exclusively but mainly Ontario. I would like to remind you that, of the 10,000 nuclear workers across the country, there are 6,000 to 8,000 in Ontario, 700 in Quebec, about 500 in New Brunswick and 500 in Saskatchewan's uranium mines.

The situation was particularly worrying for Ontario. That it why they followed the work of the parliamentary committee very closely. Both parties were heard, since the nuclear industry accounts for 60 per cent of electricity generation in Ontario.

I am not saying that we did not try to introduce amendments to Bill C-3. Although we agree with the principle of devolving responsibility for this area-and we hope that this will extend to other areas and that the Minister of Labour can influence the minister responsible for intergovernmental relations and other ministers in this cabinet to transfer certain areas of jurisdiction-this bill nonetheless does not meet with unanimous approval.

It does not meet with unanimous approval first of all because Ontario Hydro union members are not too crazy about being subject to provincial labour legislation in light of the Harris government's shift to the right.

Even so, we, in the official opposition, did not succumb to the temptation of seeing things the same way as workers who did not have an overall view. The government took the overall view of withdrawing from the area of labour relations in the nuclear industry because the provinces, and Ontario, New Brunswick and Quebec in particular, had respectively 15, 30 and 40 years experience in that area.

I am thrilled at the thought of being able to rely on the support of the Minister of Human Resources Development, whose global outlook on things make him take an interest in matters as diverse as unemployment and energy, which in his mind are both explosive issues.

That said, let me remind you that we suggested amendments that the government rejected, with a rare elegance mind you, but rejected nonetheless. I owe to the truthfulness of our deliberations to remind you that the Quebec government had contacted the hon. member for Saint-Léonard and Minister of Labour, requesting that the applicable Quebec legislation be referred to specifically in his bill.

It must be understood that, while we agree in principle with the bill, we would rather this not be done through regulations but through references in the act instead. I understand the minister for giving in to his officials, explaining that he was not comfortable with the idea of yielding to Quebec's demands, because of the risk of creating a precedent that could have been detrimental to New Brunswick, Ontario and Saskatchewan.

At any rate, Quebec's position concerning Bill C-3, which, I remind you, we agree with in principle, would have been that it should refer directly to provincial legislation rather than to regulations and that it should state that, as soon as the act came into effect, after receiving royal assent, all provincial legislation regarding those employed by the companies governed by the Atomic Energy Control Act will become applicable.

For information, the legislation provides that, when the Government of Canada, through its minister responsible, the Minister of Labour, and his Quebec counterpart have negotiated an agreement, no third party will be authorized to request that the legislation apply on that territory. Naturally, the authority to negotiate rests with the province or the provincial government.

I think that it is important to remember that, in Quebec's case, six pieces of legislation are involved, including the act respecting labour standards, the Quebec equivalent to the federal government's Labour Code, Part III, and the act to ensure that essential services are maintained. We always refer to this legislation with great pride, because it was passed in Quebec by the government of the late René Lévesque and is definitely the answer to our labour relations problems. The Minister of Labour should follow that model, so as to have similar provisions in the federal labour code.

The measures that will also be applied through regulations are, of course, the provincial labour code-it is essential to the bill-Quebec's occupational health and safety act, its charter of rights, as well as all the regulations governing the construction industry.

You would have been touched by all the excitement around the Minister of Labour. His whole staff was mobilized. This bill is a pet project of the minister. His staff was truly excited and wanted to make sure that we could pass the bill as quickly as possible. I can understand the minister's enthusiasm; indeed, promoting democracy is always an exciting moment in the career of a public figure. This is the first bill sponsored by the new Minister of Labour in this House. Still, it would have been nice if he had accepted the amendments proposed by the opposition. As you know, one would be hard pressed to find a single one of these amendments that is either unreasonable or unjustified.

Yet, our amendments were rejected. Nevertheless, we will support the bill, but we feel it would have been appropriate to refer directly to the act, instead of going through a regulatory framework which has a major drawback in that it does not get Parliament involved.

In the case of a bill on labour relations, it is vital that Parliament be involved.

In any case, the debate is over and the issue has been dealt with. As a democrat, I accept the parliamentary rules and I will abide by the decision made by the sub-committee.

I also want to remind this House that, should a labour conflict or an emergency situation occur, it will incumbent on each participating province to ensure that the situation or conflict is resolved under provincial laws.

In spite of the labour minister's enthusiasm because of the imminent passing of Bill C-3, the real test for him will definitely be the anti-scab legislation. As you know, consultations were held across the country and the Sims report was tabled, so as to immediately give an indication of what the government should do regarding Part I of the labour code.

I think the government will have to introduce an anti-scab bill. This will be a test of political courage. As you know, in politics, courage is a rather rare commodity; moreover, it is unevenly distributed. Mr. Speaker, I would go so far as to say that it is generally more prevalent on your left than on your right, but I realize you cannot do anything about that.

Again, the real test will be the anti-scab legislation. We urge the government to introduce this legislation. I even told the minister, in sub-committee, that if he wishes so, we are prepared to continue our work until the government can propose a model.

What does an anti-scab bill entail? The Quebec government provides a very eloquent example. We are talking about an instrument of last resort-after all, a strike is also an ultimate means, not a marginal one. Yet, for reasons that are often related to the deterioration of labour relations, a power struggle ultimately results in a strike action. Consequently, it is necessary to have a tool to alleviate tensions under such circumstances.

This instrument helps labour relations in such a context, because workers who go on strike, usually on the advice of their union, are aware that even if they walk out they will not lose their job once the conflict is over.

I will conclude by saying that we will support this bill, that the work in committee was rather pleasant, in spite of the fact that the very reasonable amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois were rejected. I remind the minister that we hope to work on an anti-scab bill. This will be the true measure of his ability to deal with labour relation issues.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that I find it strange that the House is debating a bill at third reading and the government does not even bother to discuss its own piece of legislation. It was agreed that we would have one speaker from each side. If it is too late, then it is too late. However, this is a strange way of conducting the business of this House.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, March 26th, 1996]

Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, but there has been a misunderstanding. I thought the government majority wanted to debate this bill, especially since we support this measure. I would like to speak to Bill C-3 if I may, Mr. Speaker.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, March 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thought there would be a debate at third reading. Is that also your understanding?

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we would have been very surprised had the minister not referred to the Federal Office of Regional Development. He cannot help it. I think that the hon. member will agree with me that members on both sides of this House will be under enormous pressure to review the tax system and that saying banks must also face the pressure of international competition will not help generate support. Although this is true, they should not be judged on that basis. The fact remains that, during the last two recessions, two industrial sectors made what can certainly appear as inordinate profits.

The first sector is the drug industry, to which I will get back later. The second sector is the banking industry. It is no sin to make profits, as many members would agree. In this day and age, however, profitable businesses must act like good corporate citizens, which is not so obvious. The hon. member referred to various local partnerships like the economic development corporations that have managed the transition to partnership. I am tempted to remind the hon. member that we would be hard-pressed to find examples of banks that get involved in their communities to a really meaningful extent.

Humanitarian involvement is still marginal. The purpose of my speech and of the bill that I may be bold enough to table some day is to ensure that banks, like other stakeholders such as the local economic development corporations the hon. member likes so much, are motivated to become partners in economic development.

[Supply, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this opposition day, which we have set aside to consider an issue that, in my opinion, is extremely important and should concern all parliamentarians who still believe in social justice and reject the status quo.

May I remind you that what we are discussing is an in-depth review of the tax system. We will not be satisfied with half-measures in light of three basic facts.

The first basic fact-which I would like to dedicate to my good friend, the hon. member for Longueuil-is that, as we speak, only 11.8 per cent of federal taxes, not the GDP but the government's tax revenue, comes from businesses. On the other hand, 60 per cent of federal tax revenue comes from individual Canadians like you and me.

So it is fair to say that corporate Canada does not contribute to the public purse as much as it could.

The second and probably most important fact is that-as strange as this may seem, as this would not be tolerated at the individual level although it is possible at the corporate level-there are now 40,000 profitable businesses that do not pay any taxes. I am not talking about the little convenience store where you go buy a candy bar before going to bed, but about profitable businesses. There are 40,000 companies that do not pay taxes and we know them.

If a member really wants to raise a point of order later on to ask me to table these figures, I am prepared to do so, because it is professor Lauzon, from the Université du Québec, in Montreal, who examined this whole issue.

We now get to the third variable-and I sense that some members are getting a little worked up-which is just as important. We are discussing taxation in a context where some individuals and some corporations make excessive profits. When we rise in this

House, we should never forget that some businesses are making excessive profits. I will, of course, use the example of the major banks.

Would you believe that, in the 1994-95 fiscal year alone, the six major chartered banks in Canada made profits of $5.8 billion? These unprecedented profits were made by very important corporate citizens that are getting richer. However, that does not stop them from laying off large numbers of employees.

These are the three premises that have convinced the opposition that we raised a real issue by asking Parliament to look into this matter.

Let me be clear: I do believe that it is legitimate to make profits. I do not agree, for instance, with the philosophy of the British Labour Party after the second world war, which wanted banks to be nationalized.

I admit that in our system it is desirable and legitimate for individuals to invest and make profits. But I believe we have reached the point of no return, where the people of Canada and Quebec are truly convinced that something illegitimate is taking root. There is a feeling that some people are not doing their part, that they are not contributing their fair share to the public coffers.

I would like to throw out a challenge to the government. I am strongly tempted to throw it to the hon. member for Outremont. Just imagine, the member for Outremont, a lawyer, is shamelessly courting the business community. To the member for Outremont, who at this period in his life is discovering the business community through the responsibilities entrusted to him by the Prime Minister-and I take this opportunity to congratulate him-I would throw the following challenge: Just imagine, the United States, a rather fertile ground for business, has a law, passed by Congress in 1977, called the Community Reinvestment Act. This law is really quite extraordinary and should inspire us as parliamentarians, because it lets regulatory bodies evaluate banks.

There are four bodies, which I will enumerate for the edification of the hon. member for Outremont. There is the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the director of the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Comptroller of the Currency.

In the United States, there is a law under which the four supervisory agencies I have just mentioned evaluate banks contemplating interstate expansions or mergers. An evaluation is made of the degree to which these banks have made credit available in their immediate community.

I represent a relatively disadvantaged community. There are people in my community without enough money to open a bank account. Could we not, as parliamentarians in Canada, give some thought to the effort that banks must make in the communities of which they are a part?

The effort that could be required of them would be to review the availability of credit. Not only could the availability of credit be reviewed-I do not hear the hon. member for Outremont, but I know he is anxious to ask me a question and I am already dying to answer him-but partnerships could be established between the banks and disadvantaged sectors. This is something that is within our reach.

Occasionally, the hon. member for Outremont attends the committee on industry, although not with his past attendance record, and from time to time he has been known to make contributions that are always noteworthy. The paradox lies in the fact that, for two years in committee, we studied the connections between banks and small business, without every questioning the concept of profit, and without ever looking at how the six major chartered banks in Canada could manage to take a more active role in the communities in which they are located. By so doing, they would contribute to a more equitable taxation system.

I truly believe that, if we want to address this seriously, there is something very, very important that must be examined. I could even give the hon. member for Outremont a piece of news by saying that, if the opportunity permits, it is very tempting to introduce a private bill, one which he might very well support in his capacity as a member, and even as a minister.

Allow me to give you an example of what happened with the Community Reinvestment Act in the U.S. In 1985, an agreement was signed between the Boatmen's National Bank of St. Louis and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, in which the bank in question agreed to provide mechanisms for mortgages and home improvement loans.

Mr. Speaker, that meant lower administration fees for disadvantaged communities. When I think of taxation, this is the type of approach that interests me. You will never see me here attacking those who make profits, but I can always be counted on to speak out in debate to encourage them not to forget that they are part of a community and that it is very important for them to make an effort to plough as much as possible back into that community.

[Supply, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a certain amount of respect for the previous speaker, after working with him in the human rights committee. If I were a teacher and you were to ask me to assess how rigorous his arguments have been this morning, however, I would be forced to give him a big fat zero. Let me explain.

What we are dealing with is a dispute between two self-managed crown corporations with their own administrative policies. An hon. member rose in the House this morning-and I think that this shows a lot of nerve, not to say chutzpa, even a little rudeness on the part of the Reform Party-to put forward an opposition motion urging the federal government to intervene in a dispute between two crown corporations.

You may tell me: "Yes, but a dispute is possible in relation to what is most sacred in law, namely a contract". Anyone who went to university and took a few law courses knows that a contract is what binds the parties in a world where order, justice and equity mean something.

How can the hon. member rise and ask the federal government to intervene in an area that is none of its business on the basis of a contract that was signed by what we can assume are two enlightened, knowledgeable parties and that runs until the year 2031? How can the hon. member show so much disrespect for Quebec, its premier and its representatives by rising in this House and telling us that it is unfair?

Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to pay a little more respect and remind him that, in our system, when people sign their names to a legal document called a contract, they are bound by it. If this means nothing to Reformers, it just goes to show that those people will never form the government.

[Science And Technology, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if there is a program for defence conversion, let him state it clearly, for what it looks like from here is abandonment of the industries needing government assistance. I would ask him to recall that, in 1994, a financial report involving Industry Canada, the CSN, the FTQ, the City of Montreal, the Quebec department of industry and commerce, and the Montreal Urban Community assessed the figure for defence conversion at $55 million.

Can the minister commit, in keeping with what he was demanding when in Opposition, to making these sums available for defence conversion, as recommended in a study funded by his very own department? Is that what consistency is?

[Science And Technology, March 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. For two years now, the defence industry has been lobbying the government to create a fund aimed at defence conversion, in order to save the 10,000 jobs in that industry which are in jeopardy in Quebec. The people in charge of that new fund, which bears the name of Technology Partnerships Canada, inform us that this new program has no specific component dedicated solely to conversion.

Can the Minister tell us whether his new program, Technology Partnerships Canada, will provide the necessary support to the 30 Quebec firms in urgent need of government assistance to convert their industry?