Benoît Sauvageau

[The Environment, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if legislation was passed in 1993, how can the minister explain why it is taking her so long to implement a contingency plan in case of spills while her colleague, the Minister of Transport, plans to delay until the year 2015 the implementation of regulations concerning the transportation of dangerous goods in double hulled ships?

[The Environment, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

Canada has not yet passed legislation to force ships sailing in Canadian waters to have a double hull. So the risk of spills causing considerable damage to the environment is still very high. Because of the St. Lawrence Seaway, Quebec is directly concerned by this absence of legislation. A chemical spill in our river would be catastrophic for the environment and our economy.

Can the minister, who announced on February 8 she would table her action plan before April 1st, explain to this House the delay of more than two months on an issue of such crucial importance for coastal regions in Quebec and Canada?

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there are people for whom causing the loss of jobs or unemployment insurance benefits is not a major problem. But it is for us.

The impact on workers from eastern Canada and Quebec will then be considerable. Taking measures that penalize a specific region is dishonest and illogical. Those taxpayers pay taxes and contribute to the unemployment insurance system as much as other Canadian taxpayers. They give their share but do not get much in return.

Once again, the federal government's approach shows us the importance of acting quickly to put an end to these irregularities. A sovereign Quebec could very well administer its unemployment insurance system. The cuts, or even the savings that the federal government is trying to achieve show us how our federal system is totally absurd, with its duplication that is costing Quebecers and Canadians millions of dollars every year. The Liberals cut where it is most painful because unemployment insurance recipients will be the first victims of this economic chaos.

Let us have a look to the so-called jobs creation that is supposed to be generated by the premium reduction. At this point, the premium rate is $3.07 per $100 of income. The Liberals intend to reduce the premiums to $3.00 on January 1, 1995. It should be reminded to Quebecers and Canadians that it is the Liberals who raised and voted in December the increase from $3.00 to $3.07.

The Liberals figure that the reduction next year will result in the creation of 40,000 new jobs in 1996. There is no need for a comprhensive financial analysis to understand that there will be no job creation and that we will only maintain existing jobs. These are two very different notions that the Liberals do not seem to understand.

Let us summarize in a simple way how unemployment insurance premiums went up and down. In 1993, they were at $3.00 for every $100 of income. In 1994, they were raised to $3.07 per $100. And they were supposed to reach $3.30 per $100 by 1995.

The new plan of the government is the following: $3.00 per $100 in 1993, $3.07 in 1994 and down again $3.00 in 1995. So we are back to the rate of 1993. Logically, as said Einstein, nothing is lost and nothing is created, but the Liberals do not understand that.

That is not the way the Liberals figure it. According to them, if the previous calculation formula had been kept, we would have lost 9,000 jobs in 1994 and 31,000 others in 1995.

By bringing the premiums back to $3.00 in 1995, the Liberals figure that 9,000 jobs will be saved in 1994 and 35,000 more in 1995, for a total of 40,000 jobs created. This is totally false. As was said previously, a simple calculation gives a grand total of zero. As a matter of fact, the increase decided by the Liberals for the current year has brought a loss of 9,000 jobs. If premiums get back to their 1993 rate of $3.00, we will only recover 9,000 jobs. Quite a number! Therefore, we are not talking here about 40,000 new jobs but about 31,000 jobs protected for 1995 and 9,000 others lost the previous year but recovered.

We should not try to mislead the public with such a vain promise. People are not so easily tricked any more. We must stop offering them empty shells and address the real problems. It is true that unemployment is a serious problem in Quebec and in Canada and we must not pretend we can solve it so easily.

The government must stop believing it can be the sole source of job creation. As we said before, small and medium-sized businesses are and will remain the main source of job creation and we could reduce the unemployment rate, for example, by increasing government assistance to those employers. Everybody is eagerly awaiting the recovery but unfortunately it is a long time coming.

Through its actions, the government must show a real will to fight down the economic difficulties that people of Quebec and Canada have been facing for too many years already. The trust they put in their leaders is not unconditional and we must show our constituents that the government really wants to get the country out of this economic abyss in which it is sinking and this is not what it is doing.

They must stop making empty promises and developing legislations which have negative financial impacts on the public. They must instead show they really want to get out of this economic impasse.

You might say that we criticize without proposing any solutions. Not so. My colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup has proposed amendments to Bill C-17 which could help reduce job losses.

For example, why not lower the contribution to $3 per $100 starting June 1, 1994, instead of waiting until January 1, 1995? This would mean 9,000 jobs, about 9,000 families who would not have to wait another six months. Can we afford 9,000 more unemployed? Certainly not. Do you not think that workers would prefer a salary rather than unemployment insurance payments, also reduced by Bill C-17 I might add?

To conclude, we are faced with a bill which is unacceptable for a large portion of voters. We should stop trying to make people believe that they have something to gain, where there is in fact nothing to gain. The people will not be fooled again by the government. What they want is a real economic recovery, they want real jobs. Let us proceed towards the economic upturn that the population of my riding and Quebec has been expecting for too long now.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

May I continue, Sir? I thank you very much for your indulgence and your attention; that is very nice.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time that I have the opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-17. It is vitally important for me, as a Quebecer, not to keep quiet about the major changes the government wants to make to the Unemployment Insurance Act.

These changes will particularly affect Eastern Canada, the Maritimes and Quebec. The Liberals are trying to play down the losses Quebec will incur by talking about job creation. It would be day-dreaming to think that the public will be fooled by that, because no jobs will actually be created by these changes. That is what I will try to demonstrate here, today.

Like all of Eastern Canada, Quebec will be hard hit by the increase in the number of weeks of insurable employment included in Bill C-17. Indeed, as I said previously, only the regions in Canada with a high level of unemployment will be affected by the changes to the number of weeks of insurable employment. That means six out of thirteen regions in Quebec, and seven out of thirteen regions in the Maritimes. Also, 95.6 per cent of UI claimants in Quebec will be directly affected by the changes to the number of insurable weeks needed to become eligible for UI benefits.

The people of my riding will be directly affected by these new measures. We have received hundreds of letters asking me to intervene in order to prevent the unemployment insurance system from being changed that way. Those are protest letters coming from taxpayers who, as myself, cannot accept these major changes to unemployment insurance. It is on their behalf that I speak today and also that I oppose Bill C-17. It is for my constituents and also for all those of Quebec and Canada who will be targeted by the changes made to the Unemployment Insurance Act that I oppose that bill today.

[Petitions, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of submitting a petition signed by over 1,500 residents of my riding who ask Parliament to urge the minister of immigration to legalize the status of the Dudka family so that they can lead an honest, peaceful life in Quebec, as they intend to.

Given that the Dudkas have been living in Mascouche since January 7, 1992, but failed to obtain refugee status, that both parents have stable employment, that the family has adjusted harmoniously to the Quebec society, that support for the Dudkas is already widespread, that there are two children in this family, one of whom was born in Quebec, and that their lives would be in danger if they were forced to return to Argentina, I feel duty bound to ask the minister to consider this petition and grant refugee status to the Dudka family in Quebec.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, several questions remain unanswered regarding Bill C-22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport. The thorough study of this bill and the privatization agreement entered into at Pearson airport are very important to us, since it has become such a controversial matter.

This bill contains blatant contradictions with the commitments made by the Liberals during the campaign. They seem to have forgotten their commitment about restoring the confidence of citizens in the political institutions, even though they wrote an entire chapter on the subject in the red book. We are confused by their attitude. Therefore, we believe it is relevant to remind them of the promise they made to Canadians during the last campaign, which is, and I quote: "A Liberal government will take a series of initiatives to restore confidence in the institutions of government". And further, they wrote, and I quote: "We will follow the basic principle that government decisions must be made on the merits of a case rather than according to the political influence of those making the case. We will take an approach of openness in decision making". To win public confidence, you need to take some concrete measures but unfortunately the population is still waiting.

Clause 10 of Bill C-22 gives the minister in charge the discretionary power to sign agreements in order to pay compensation pursuant to the legislation. Furthermore, we are told no compensation will be paid for paper profits that never materialize or for lobbying. How can the public be certain such compensation payments will be made according to the legislation and be entirely free of any favouritism? Just from looking at it, and without investigating any further, one can see that this case reeks of political manipulation; we are not the ones to say

so, it is the opinion of the Nixon report author who had neither the resources nor the time to complete a comprehensive inquiry.

That is why we maintain that the only way to ensure transparency in this case is to form a royal commission of inquiry which would shed light on the whole issue. The Minister of Transport himself said, as quoted in La Presse of last November 29, that the federal government intended to form a royal commission of inquiry on the privatization of the Pearson airport. Unfortunately, the government did not follow up on that project which, need I remind you, would be essential to the demonstration of proper public funds management. What do Liberals want to hide? We cannot remain idle in front of such an attitude. Where is the promised transparency? What happened to the noble Liberal promise?

A royal commission of inquiry remains the only efficient way to bring things up to date in this case which has all the makings of a scandal. Illegal acts must be brought out in the open. Why are the Liberals not taking any action? Whom do they want to protect? Why not follow up on their project to establish an inquiry commission? Such a commission could bring out in the open illegal or unacceptable actions. In such cases, it would not be necessary for the minister to pay compensation. In other words, section 10 of Bill C-22 would be irrelevant. One must also keep in mind paragraph 8.6.3 of the contract.

We are speaking now about public funds, about the taxpayers' money. We cannot stand idle while the government refuses to act. As the Minister of Transport said so eloquently in his speech of April 26 about the Pearson Airport privatization, and I quote: "We believe matters that could significantly affect our economy and our competitive position as a nation should be decided in an open and accessible process". Which process could be more open and accessible than a royal commission of inquiry? How do the Liberals plan to shed light on this deal?

Regarding compensation, Bill C-22 seems to make an exception of lobbying. If I may, I want to remind the House that lobbying services are already tax deductible.

Therefore, taxpayers already paid part of the expenses supported by the companies which used such services. Nobody should be conned into believing that the shell games, all too common in this case, will not cost a penny to taxpayers. On the contrary, all the political connections that came to the fore lead us to predict that there will be much waste of public funds.

There are more than Conservative lobbyists and key figures involved in this. There are also lobbyists and money-men for the other big party, as it likes to be called. Clearly, this deal was put together by people from the two rival parties. If the minister exercises his discretionary power it will cast a dark shadow on the government and this House. Without a royal commission of inquiry Quebecers and Canadians will never be certain of the integrity of their government. This is a far cry from the openness the Liberal Party promised the people.

Moreover, without a commission, it is quite possible that innocent people could be painted with the same brush as the others. The fact that the government refuses to shed light on this affair will tarnish the reputation of all the people involved. The government cannot act like nothing happened, like it did not have any suspicion regarding the integrity of some of the stakeholders. A public inquiry would restore, among ordinary citizens, confidence in the honesty of the system.

To conclude, I wish to underline the controversy which surrounds this whole affair. True, friends of the previous government are involved, but some people very close to the present government have also a hand in this sordid mess. Quebecers and Canadians have the right to get to the bottom of this saga. That would be transparency, not the kind we talk about but the kind we live everyday of our lives; the kind people expect of their elected representatives and that would help restore people's confidence in their government.

Quebecers and Canadians are tired of playing games with their governments. It is their money which is at stake. Let us put an end to political manoeuvring and dirty tricks, whether real or apparent. People have the right to know. It is fundamental. A democratic country, which takes pride in its Charter of Rights and Freedoms, cannot afford to put a lid on this whole thing. The only way to get to the bottom of the Pearson Airport privatisation deal is to order a royal commission without further delay. In view of the fact that voter confidence for their elected representatives is the cornerstone of democracy, it is unacceptable to allow the minister in charge to pay any compensation as long as all the ins and outs of this deal have not been made public through an independent and impartial process.

[Canada Wildlife Act, May 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the middle of the 20th century, we saw our planet from space for the first time. Historians may eventually find that this vision had a greater impact on thought than the Copernican revolution of the 16th century, which upset the human self-image by revealing that the Earth is not the center of the universe.

From space, we see a small and fragile ball dominated not by human activity and edifice but by a pattern of clouds, oceans, greenery, and soils.

Humanity's inability to fit its doings into that pattern is changing planetary systems, fundamentally. Many such changes are accompanied by life-threatening hazards. This new reality, from which there is no escape, must be recognized-and managed.

This introduction, Mr. Speaker, is taken from the very first chapter of the Brundtland report dated 1987. We must, each and every one of us, recognize its importance and never forget it.

We are here today to debate Bill C-24. This bill amends the Canada Wildlife Act, which was passed in 1973, and its purpose, as stated by the department, is, and I quote: "to permit the Government to conduct wildlife research and to undertake various activities related to wildlife conservation and interpretation". The provinces are responsible for managing wildlife, except for most species of migratory birds, fish and mammals.

This bill, in somewhat the same way as Bill C-23, is bringing existing legislation up to date. It is basically an update, with a few new provisions. Nothing indicates, upon review, this bill might infringe upon the responsibilities of Quebec or any other province in Canada. But as I said earlier, we can no longer afford nowadays to ignore the environmental question, particularly with respect to biodiversity.

We need only think of endangered species, as mentioned in chapter 6 of the very important Brundtland report, "Our Common Future". The introduction to this chapter reads as follows: "Conservation of living natural resources-plants, animals and micro-organisms, and the non-living elements of the environment on which they depend-is crucial for development. Today, the conservation of wild living resources is on the agenda of governments; nearly 4 per cent of the Earth's land area is

managed explicitly to conserve species and ecosystems, and all but a small handful of countries have national parks. The challenge facing nations today is no longer deciding whether conservation is a good idea, but rather how it can be implemented in the national interest and within the means available in each country".

All of us here in this House today are convinced of the importance of saving endangered species, as the countries which signed the Brundtland report were. The problem is how to do it.

It is not necessary to point out that it is vital to humanity to save these species. Just think of agriculture, medicine and industry to see the economic importance of wildlife species. A recent Statistics Canada survey indicated that spending on activities of all kinds related to fish and other wildlife species contributed $11.5 billion to GNP and created some 250,000 jobs. Protecting endangered species is vital for the whole economy, whence the recent terminology "environment and sustainable development".

Governments have come to realize that it is impossible to separate economic development issues from environmental issues. Everything is interrelated and, again, we must aim for a global vision, a global position on environmental matters.

What about hope in all this? Some people may accuse us of being idealistic and utopian, but one does not have to go very far to come up with several success stories. The decrease in infant mortality rates and the increase in life expectancy rates, in the number of adults knowing how to read and write and in the percentage of children attending school are some of the success stories allowing us to believe in the evolution and improvement of the environment. They seemed impossible to achieve but they were because of the goals set out in the bill. This bill applies to animals, wild plants and other organisms and to their habitats.

We thus want to ensure that an element of the ecosystem essential to the survival of an endangered species is protected too. That is why the term "wildlife" was substituted for the word "fauna" throughout the bill.

Extending the definition of fauna to all wildlife, in accordance with the Convention on Biodiversity ratified by Canada in 1993, makes environmental measures more consistent.

A few examples from "Our Common Future" make us realize the economic potential of maintaining and preserving our ecosystems.

First of all, there would appear to be plants containing hydrocarbons, not carbohydrates. Since some of these plants exist in regions which have become useless because of activities such as surface mining or hydrocarbon extraction, the same report says that coal, among other minerals, could be regenerated by soil cultivation of hydrocarbons. And, unlike an oil well, an oil plantation or fuel farm would never dry out. Imagine the savings, as well as the benefits from an environmental point of view.

Let us take a look at corn crops in the United States. In the early seventies, some fungus seriously damaged corn crops, causing losses of two billion dollars. Recently, a primitive kind of corn from Mexico was discovered. This wild corn is perennial, while the other kinds are annual. Crossing this corn with commercial varieties of corn would translate into savings on ploughing and seeding. The genetic qualities of this plant, which was almost extinct, would allow savings of hundreds of millions every year in the United States alone.

The preservation of wild species ensures our survival and allows us to make enormous savings.

The amendments in this bill do not concern only endangered species. Indeed, the scope of the legislation is extended to include inland waters and territorial waters-we are referring here to the 200 nautical mile limit-so that the government can create protected marine areas to ensure the survival of endangered species. However, and this is very important for us, if provincial jurisdiction is involved, the federal government will have to come to an agreement with the province concerned. Moreover, this amendment will have the effect of significantly increasing the protection of our marine ecosystems, which are important for our wild species. Protecting ecosystems in an intelligent manner contributes to the major goals of sustainable development.

Clause 13 of Bill C-24, which amends section 11 of the act, clearly defines the duties and powers of wildlife officers as well as their role with respect to the provinces. This provision clarifies the specific duties and functions of wildlife officers and others involved in this field.

Clause 15, on the other hand, significantly increases the amount of the fines that can be awarded. These may range from $5,000 up to a maximum of $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months. Hopefully, the new fines provided for in the legislation will discourage potential lawbreakers and poachers.

Pursuant to the legislation, the minister may acquire lands for research, conservation and interpretation purposes involving migratory birds and, if it is in the national interest, other species, including endangered ones, in which case he acts in co-operation with the provinces. There are currently 45 national wildlife preserves in Canada covering a total area of 287,000 hectares.

In conclusion, I would like to draw a parallel between the Canada Wildlife Act, Bill C-24 and sustainable development. Sustainable development is defined on page 8 of the Bruntdland Report as the ability of humanity to do the following, and I quote: "to ensure that it meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".

The report also stresses the following point, and I quote: "There is a growing need for effective international co-operation to manage ecological and economic interdependence. Yet at the same time, confidence in international organizations is diminishing and support for them dwindling".

Therefore, it goes without saying that we on this side of the House support this bill designed to update the existing legislation and to clarify certain roles and responsibilities. You can rest assured, Mr. Speaker, that the Bloc Quebecois will continue to support initiatives that promote the environment and sustainable development, provided they are respectful of existing jurisdictions.

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as assistant critic for the environment and sustainable development, it is a pleasure for me to speak on Bill C-23.

This bill seeks to modernize and update a law dating back to 1917. To understand it better, I think that we have to go back a little into our history and look at the situation at the turn of the century. In the early 1900s, there was considerable exploitation of migratory birds and trade in them. As a result, their numbers dropped drastically. The need to intervene to end this illicit trade and to protect the species was increasingly urgent.

In 1916, Canada and the United States signed the Migratory Birds Convention. The next year, in 1917, Parliament passed the Migratory Birds Convention Act. The provisions of this Act seek to regulate the hunting of migratory birds and to prevent traffic and trade in them.

Through permits, this law controls the use made of migratory birds. Several aspects of the 1917 law are obsolete today. For example, the penalties provided in the Act are no longer what society is entitled to expect. Fines from $10 to $300 are provided for infractions. Bill C-23 as presented today increases these penalties very significantly.

Amounts of up to $5,000 and even $25,000 provided in clause 13(1) will deter poachers, we hope. The evolution of our society and the example of penalties alone show the importance of updating and modernizing this law, of strengthening the enforcement rules and clarifying the procedures.

For us in the Bloc Quebecois, several aspects of this law are of great interest. As I said in the introduction to my speech, it was very necessary to update the legislation. In particular, we hope to add that not only birds, their eggs and nests are protected but also their embryos and tissue cultures.

We think that this provision is essential; given the evolution of biotechnology and the amazing possibilities that exist or will exist in this regard, this provision is most desirable. Clearly, however, such a scientific achievement was unimaginable in 1917 and the law could not include such a clause.

According to various environmental groups, millions of wild birds are illegally captured, poisoned or driven from their nests throughout the world. Therefore it is appropriate for us to legislate in this way in view of this phenomenon.

We learned in the Saskatoon Star Phoenix last January and in La Presse that 1,000 of 9,600 bird species were in danger of extinction; that is, more than 10 per cent of our birds could disappear very soon. We agree that the situation is urgent.

An article in the March 24 issue of La Presse contained some comments on the seriousness of the situation. The author showed that 70 per cent of existing species in the world are in decline. According to one study he quotes, the illegal trade in wild birds is a growing threat to the species, especially in Southeast Asia. World Watch , an American magazine, gives some of the reasons why the number of birds is decreasing in Canada and throughout the world, and I quote: ``Most bird species are in decline because the natural balance is upset by the global expansion of mankind''.

Of course, the problems caused by deforestation due to farmland expansion or urban spread, industrial and domestic pollution are but a few of the factors contributing to the declining number of birds in Canada and throughout the world. In North America alone, deforestation may have caused the alarming reduction in bird population in 250 species breeding on its territory.

As I said earlier, we must speak up on the illegal trade in birds. According to a study by the World Wide Fund for Nature, this lucrative trade is growing by leaps and bounds. In the last 20 years, 2,600 species have been identified among those traded. This commercial activity is flourishing in Southeast Asia. To the

five million birds traded each year must be added an estimated three million in China.

We are in a position to realize that this kind of trade affects much more than our two countries. We are legislating on a bilateral Canada-U.S. solution but we must also see the problem as a whole.

Serious allegations have led us to consider this problem from an international standpoint. Some airlines will not transport wild birds. That is fine. However, the article from the WWF goes on to say: "Singapore proclaimed itself the hub of this trade for the whole region". Because of loopholes in the legislation, wild birds illegally exported from Indonesia, Thailand or Malaysia become legal goods when they go through Singapore.

You might say we are a long way from our bill on migratory birds in Canada and in the United States, but we are not. Environmental problems such as acid rain, the ozone layer, dangerous goods and many others know no boundaries. And the impact here of these various problems require us to take a stand.

Clearly, Bill C-23 is a positive measure in this context. We cannot oppose a good initiative. However, the international scope of the problem probably requires a worldwide approach as well.

It is because problems related to the ozone layer have such an international dimension that the Montreal Protocol was signed with several countries. The issue of importing and exporting dangerous goods could not be solved with a national piece of legislation. Again, several sovereign states had to agree on regulations concerning the exchange and transportation of such goods. Canada could be the leader in this field and set, through an international convention, standards which would provide some protection to this species.

I will conclude by reaffirming my support to Bill C-23, but I also want to remind you of some proposed legal principles for environmental protection and sustainable development, which are approved by Canada.

Article two of these principles provides that: "States shall conserve and use the environment and natural resources for the benefit of present and future generations". Article three says: "States shall maintain ecosystems and ecological processes essential for the functioning of the biosphere, shall preserve biological diversity, and shall observe the principle of optimum sustainable yield in the use of living natural resources and ecosystems".

In article 8, we see that the States shall co-operate in good faith with other States in implementing the preceding rights and obligations.

These are only 3 of the 22 principles for environmental protection, as found in the Brundtland report entitled Our Common Future .

I would urge the Canadian government to look forward when it deals with environmental protection and sustainable development, but to keep in mind all the agreements already signed. In this case, we have no other choice but to protect the migratory birds. However, we should be careful in doing so not to impinge on other jurisdictions. Too often, our legislation grants too much discretionary power to the minister, who can choose to enforce only parts of the law. We do not think this is the case with this bill. That is why my party and I want the bill to be referred to a committee who will seek to improve it.

Together, let us protect the endangered species.

[National Sport Act, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to support this bill which recognizes hockey as the national sport.

Like my predecessors did earlier, all Canadians and Quebecers agree that hockey should be recognized as the most popular, and therefore national, sport. This goes without saying. All we have to do is look at the popularity of the playoff games now under way, or scheduled to start in a few minutes, to recognize the importance of hockey.

However, to introduce a somewhat discordant note into the proceedings, the government is trying to use hockey as a component of national unity.

I would remind them that this evening, the Canadiens are playing against Boston, that is a sovereign Canadian country is squaring off against a sovereign American nation. If I am not mistaken, I believe that Toronto is also playing against Chicago. I do not think that Mr. Clinton and Mr. Chrétien call one another up very often or that this creates problems between the two sovereign countries. National unity, perhaps.

Still on the subject of the importance of hockey as a national sport, I want to say, as indicated earlier, that by now there is probably not one soul in Quebec or even in Canada who has not heard about Patrick Roy's appendicitis, and we hope he gets well soon.

However, let me express some reservation about debating hockey in this place, all the while respecting the principles of the parliamentary system.

Yesterday, I was the guest speaker at a luncheon organized by the Chamber of Commerce of Repentigny. By the way, I thank them for their invitation. A hundred or so business people from my riding were gathered and there were discussions about the difficult economic situation, the interest rates, and the insufficient risk capital made available to small business. Other subjects of discussion included the GST and the Quebec sales tax as well as unemployment and, of course, sovereignty.

A quick look at yesterday's Hansard leads us to ask questions on several problems facing people; yet we are talking about hockey tonight.

The issues debated yesterday in this House include the military college in Saint-Jean; Pearson Airport; the Young Offenders Act; South Africa. We congratulate them on their first democratic election and we hope that everyone will recognize the election results. Also, Bosnia; Canada's credit rating; bilingualism; the fisheries; Hibernia; the economy; AIDS; income tax; and job training.

I said earlier that many young people watch our proceedings. Talking about job training, I would like to quote the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine who said yesterday in this House in answer to my colleague from Lévis: "The federal government does not intend to question provincial jurisdiction over education".

Does this mean that he will not discuss it, that he will take on total jurisdiction in this area? His answer raises questions.

Still on the subject of young people, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine said on CBC two weeks ago that 30 to 60 per cent of young Quebecers are dropouts because of the plan for sovereignty. Look at this figure: between 30 and 60 per cent. With such precise numbers, he could be finance minister.

Last fall, Maclean's showed that although serious, the actual dropout rate of young people in Quebec was about 20 per cent. We agree that we must encourage our young people and our youth, but not at their expense and not with crass petty politicking like he engages in too often.

Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning of my presentation, I support the bill to recognize hockey as Canada's national sport, but let us all agree that people in Quebec and Canada and throughout the world face much more urgent problems.