House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2000, with 51% of the vote.
National Public Service Week June 15th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. The minister has been informing us about activities planned to celebrate National Public Service Week.
Does the minister feel comfortable holding such a celebration after the government's extension of the wage freeze, an action the head of the Public Service Alliance of Canada refers to as "hypocritical?"
Festival Franco-Ontarien June 13th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The 19th edition of the Festival franco-ontarien will take place from June 21 to 26. This festival attracts 600,000 visitors to the National Capital Region and generates $12 million in local economic benefits.
With the opening of this festival only eight days away, can the heritage minister tell this House the amount of the federal contribution to the Festival franco-ontarien ?
Points Of Order June 10th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of heritage. May I put my question?
Foreign Affairs June 6th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, we have learned that a Canadian Hercules aircraft was attacked yesterday in Kigali.
Can the Minister of National Defence inform this House on the status of the Canadian forces airlift operations in Rwanda?
Supply May 5th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I find it amusing to see the hon. member for Shefford panic and think that things are going from bad to worse in Quebec. That would be true if the sovereigntist government were to go off to sulk in a corner and to do as it pleased. The hon. member did not do his homework. When he did his research, he forgot to read the budget. If he had done so, he would know that the Liberal government will broaden the DIPP criteria to include more industries.
I would like to remind him what Paul D. Manson, a former Canadian Forces Chief of Staff and now the president of Paramax, said about his company: "Nearly two years ago, we created a task force to explore business opportunities in the civilian sector. We identified four or five very promising areas. Our parent company also extended its support and increased our budget for research and development. We answered some calls for tenders and, before the end of the year, we should have good contracts."
The hon. member, who is a sovereigntist and a separatist, should be trying to create a Canadian industrial family, instead of sulking and trying to leave us. He should be doing something constructive and positive, such as creating interactive jobs throughout Canada.
Supply May 5th, 1994
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois has introduced a motion saying:
That this House condemn the government for its unacceptable delays in developing and implementing a genuine strategy for the conversion of defence industries to civilian production, which would save and create new jobs in high-technology sectors.
I congratulate the hon. members from the Bloc Quebecois for thinking about jobs. I hope they will raise, in Canada and in Quebec, concern for Canadian jobs. When I refer to Canada and Canadians, I mean all provinces, including Quebec. Their objective of separation is certainly not the ideal recipe for job creation. We need to belong to a strong community, a strong family, large and co-operative enough to develop its own industries.
We were informed today of the policies and programs which would guarantee the success of the conversion of defence equipment manufacturers into companies active on international markets. However, it is not simply a question of policies and programs. The main factors are the entrepreneurial spirit, the measures taken and the results achieved.
There are many examples of success. One of them is Securiplex Technologies of Montreal. This is the story of a successful conversion by a company which was well-known for its defence equipment. Recently, they had the good fortune of getting a $26 million contract from Bombardier BN, in Bruges, Belgium, for the production of a control system.
This system will electronically detect and extinguish fires in the 254 shuttle-cars that will be used in the Chunnel.
It is based on the system designed by Securiplex for damage control on warships and presently installed on 12 new Canadian frigates and ships of the British Royal Navy.
This system uses microprocessors to monitor and control the sensors and fire-extinction devices, as well as other security systems. It was developed under a procurement contract negotiated with the Government of Canada through the Defence Industry Productivity Program.
Since the completion of this project, and with the help of Industry Canada, Securiplex marketing has been targeting commercial companies. This firm is actively pursuing the industrial security market, especially in North America, Europe and the Middle East.
Among its achievements are the contracts it won to supply sophisticated fire detection and extinction systems for the headquarters of the European Economic Community in Brussels, the Alba power plant in Bahrain, in the Middle East, and the Hibernia drilling platform off Newfoundland.
ATS is a rather impressing example. It was created on the Montreal South shore in 1979. Originally, it was a small company specialised in ammunition testing. Aware of the limitations of this activity, it sought to put its considerable expertise to good use by creating software for new markets.
Today, this company has nearly entirely changed its field of activity. Its future lies now in completely new opportunities it created, namely air control tower and room simulators. Training air controllers is of the utmost importance, and yet nothing has been done to update training methods.
Presently, ATS is executing major contracts awarded by international customers. DIPP played a crucial role in the development of this firm's technological capacity. ATS was awarded its last contract in January 1992, and since then it has not asked for another loan.
The common denominator to these success stories is the fact that these manufacturers of defence equipment were able to adapt to the new reality and meet the demand of a new market. It is also our government's commitment to help these industries diversify. The pessimistic outlook of some concerning the future of our aerospace and defence industries does not reflect reality. As a whole, the news regarding defence industries is rather good.
For example, many members know that one of the leading Canadian aerospace and defence electronics firms is CAE Electronics Limited of Montreal. This company is a world-class operation in every respect. It is the main supplier of commercial aircraft flight simulators and records important sales to similar defence markets.
CAE Electronics employs more than 3,000 people, with scientists, engineers and technicians accounting for half of the workforce. Annual sales of nearly $350 million are made by the Montreal offices and the figure is expected to increase next year. The company has been experiencing tremendous growth and expansion for the past three decades. Annual sales now in excess of one billion derive primarily from exports.
The company is now busy expanding its facilities in order to welcome clients from around the world who will attend courses focusing on some of the most advanced technologies in the world, from aircrafts to ships. Several years ago, CAE Electronics acquired a major U.S. competitor called Link. This company is now truly world class with a diverse client base. Nevertheless, it continues to manage the electronics side of the business from its offices in Montreal.
However, CAE Electronics still needs the support of the government. This is especially true in the case of the project which it is carrying out with the American National Aerospace Administration and which involves exploring the application of virtual reality in the cockpit. Without the support of the Defence Industry Productivity Program, projects like this which are vitally important to the future of CAE Electronics would be impossible to carry out.
That is why the federal government has indicated in the red book it was determined to maintain this important program. CAE also takes an active part in other defence conversion projects, some of which in sectors far removed from traditional defence activities. It is currently involved in a marketing project for an artificial heart designed at the Heart Institute in Ottawa.
However, CAE still considers defence as an important part of the corporate strategy in its business plans. Defence contracts do account for the best part of its commercial activity and offer unique opportunities to explore the limits of technology applied to training and simulation.
The federal government plans on continuing its partnership with CAE as well as with a number of other innovative, creative and flourishing companies. The Canadian taxpayers' investments in companies such as this one have never been more important. CAE and the Montreal area can expect to prosper thanks to these investments. CAE has undertaken to design, develop and market new products and new services to meet the needs of the population in the 21st century.
There are many more success stories in the defence industry, stories of companies that have expanded their lines of activity and prospered by identifying a need and meeting it commercially.
Defence conversion is nothing new for many Canadian companies, and their success is envied by their competitors.
Income Tax Act April 26th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Nepean for introducing a bill to amend the Income Tax Act.
Her amendment deals mainly with regulations dating back to 1942, that are 52 years ago, at a time when child support payments were paid to the mother, who generally had custody of the children. It allowed the father to deduct support payments from his taxable income.
As you know, the Divorce Act is administered by the provinces and the amount of child support is determined by provincial court judges.
We also know that, compared to 1942, the number of divorces is very high. This is regrettable, but this is a fact of life in our society.
I have a report from the federal-provincial-territorial family law committee that suggests that if tax implications are to be taken into account there are number of issues to be considered. There is no guidance in the Divorce Act nor provincial or territorial legislation as to how the calculations should be made or how the benefit of the deduction should be shared between the parties.
Reference is made to a Divorce Act evaluation from May 1990 from the Department of Justice that stated: "It is important to consider this issue in the context in which it actually occurs, namely that two-thirds of Canadian women and children live in poverty following divorce".
I am going to take the liberty to read parts of a letter I received from a constituent of mine after getting permission from this person to read extracts. Mrs. Jackie Cloutier wrote to me regarding the taxation of child support. She is proud to give me permission to read these extracts from her letter: "Taxing child support in the hand of the already impoverished parent is wrong. Many women like myself lose up to two-thirds of their child support to income tax. We do not live in fancy homes or drive fancy cars. We do not take lavish vacations. We cannot afford to plan for retirement. We struggle every day to make ends meet, most often living from pay cheque to pay cheque and regularly running out of money at the end of the month. Every year in April we are faced with this unnecessary debt to Revenue Canada".
She concludes, and I jumped some parts of her letter: "The report released by the United Nations on the status of women and children in Canada clearly stated that we are living in poverty. Please take the necessary steps to change this law now. Don't let another year go by where women and children suffer needlessly at the hands of the tax system".
Therefore, I am pleased to support the initiative of my colleague from Nepean and to ask the federal government that it change the Income Tax Act to exempt child support payments from taxation.
Point Of Order April 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Reform Party presented a motion to amend the Official Languages Act. As you know, I did not share the views expressed by Reform Party members, individually and collectively, as they spoke in this debate. Nor do I agree with the proposal of the Reform Party to split our official languages, in other words, that French should be the only official language in Quebec and English the only official language outside Quebec.
You can imagine I felt under attack, and as a member of the francophone minority outside Quebec, I found the Reform Party's comments insulting. Because of them, I felt as though I were becoming less and less a Canadian.
I intend to pursue the debate on official languages and stand up for the rights of French Canadians throughout Canada and for the rights of anglophones throughout Canada, whether we are talking about English- speaking minorities in Quebec or French-speaking minorities outside Quebec.
However, considering the great respect I have for this House, if I happened to offend this House-and I do mean this House-by my use of rather emotional terms, I withdraw anything I said that may have offended. However, with respect to minority languages, whether we are talking about French or English, I repeat that I will continue my efforts to defend these minorities.
Points Of Order April 20th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the House leader is offended by the fact that I talked about ethnic cleansing. He quoted some pages of Hansard to support his contentions a short while ago.
I would like to refer to page 3147. A member of the Reform Party stated yesterday that language fractures a country and he made reference to Bosnia and suggested that all the problems and wars in the world today are caused by ethnic problems. He then continued to speak about the problems that the French Canadians are creating in Canada by wanting to be recognized for their rights, minority-
Points Of Order April 20th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, we have here a prime example of what the Reform Party--