Antoine Dubé

[Access To Information Act, April 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is my turn to speak on this subject and, like the other Bloc MPs, I must say I am in favour of this bill because it is aimed at providing MPs and the general public with greater access to information.

This bill has only one clause, which extends it to all crown corporations, since a number of these are currently excluded, such as the CBC, to which my colleague has referred, the Canadian Wheat Board and Canada Post. It is intended to avoid any ambiguity.

For example, a schedule to the present act calls for the 20 departments currently in existence within the federal government to be listed specifically, along with 109 government organizations or agencies. In order to be really sure that some crown corporations are not left out, there is also the Financial Administration Act, which applies to all crown agencies reporting to the federal government.

It seems to me that this is a good idea. First of all, the present legislation has some things in it which reassure me. The desire is to extend it to all crown corporations, but it must be kept in mind that protection of personal information comes under another act. We know that act prevents the release of any kind of personal information, particularly in the case to which my colleague referred. The purpose is to protect any information concerning private citizens.

As far as businesses are concerned, as soon as there is a question of commercial relations, of competition, there are also provisions to protect companies, even the three crown corporations currently under discussion, which would now be subject to the act. The others are already covered and are protected in the event of business competition. I have trouble understanding the reservations some colleagues may have with this, as it is clear in the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act that they are protected.

Another reason we are in favour of this bill is that a committee was struck to include all parties in the House, the Standing Committee on Justice. It began to study the whole matter in March 1987, at which time it was already recommending extension of the Access to Information Act to all crown corporations. So, this goes back a long way. And all parties were represented.

The CBC in particular argued in its brief to the committee that the corporation felt it was being targeted by the Access to Information Act and claimed to be restricted with respect to a number of programs it planned to broadcast. Arguments similar to those I mentioned earlier were put forward. The disclosure of any form of personal information was prohibited under the law. This meant that the CBC would be protected.

However, while in favour of extending the bill to all crown corporations, I have a number of concerns. As a member of Parliament, I asked several of my colleagues from different parties how long it takes to obtain information under the current access to information legislation. It depends on the subject of course. Those who managed to obtain information under this act in less than three weeks or 20 days were few and far between. Some said it could take as long as three months. That is quite a long time.

Often, while not refusing to provide the information requested, the access to information commission will ask for further details, thus delaying the process even further. I do not think it is in the public interest to allow this to go on any longer. However, the bill put forward by our colleague from the Reform Party does not go that far. It simply seeks to apply the bill to a few more corporations.

Let me give you another example. Given the time it takes the access to information commission to provide information—it can take up to three months, as I said—some government service policies were established. For instance, it is the policy of the former Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec, or FORD-Q, now known as the Economic Development for Quebec Regions Agency, to wait three months before providing information like the name of companies benefiting from a government program. That is a very long time.

In many cases, the grant or loan is awarded. Even in the present situation this gives very little opportunity, for instance to an opposition MP or even the media, to acquire information, given the turnaround time. Since it takes so long, people are often going to give up trying to find out, and just let it go.

In my capacity as the member for Lévis, in the fall of 1996 I was involved with a subsidy for the building of a vessel for the Department of National Defence. The Lévis shipyard had made a tender but was not selected, it seems, as the top bidder. I tried to analyze their tender. I can tell you that this was back in August 1996 and at that time, because it was related to defence, we managed to get some of the information, but 85% of what I would have been interested in was deleted. They said that these parts revealed defence equipment specifications, or contained data that could be harmful to the competitive nature of a manufacturer.

At the present time, the system we have is far from perfectly accessible. On the contrary, because of the delays, the mechanisms, the exclusions set out in so many legal provisions, it is difficult to obtain all the information requested.

I would like to take advantage of the fact that there has just been a vote to state that it is most unacceptable for anyone in this House to want to vote against Bill C-208. It was finally adopted with the support of the majority, but this was a bill that called for penalties for falsifying or concealing official documents. I am somewhat concerned to see that some people would not want to see information as freely available as the public would like it to be. I am astonished that the NDP, a party I respect greatly for its defence of social causes in general, for its defence of citizens, would object to the public's having easier access to information.

[Shipbuilding, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

In the 1993 election, the Liberals promised to formulate a shipbuilding policy. The premiers, in their meeting in St. Andrews last fall, also called for such a policy. Even Liberal Party members called for one at their recent convention.

Why is the government not taking action in the area of shipbuilding?

[Canada Shipping Act, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I am pleased to address Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime liability).

The Bloc Quebecois will support this bill, which is excellent since it extends maritime liability to shipowners. We think it will allow us to avoid situations such as the case of the Irving Whale , where a disaster occurred but maritime liability was inadequate. The proposed legislation sets specific limits.

While we support the bill, it should be pointed out that it was first introduced in 1996, as Bill C-58. Bill C-58 had reached committee stage and had been amended by the Standing Committee on Transport which tabled its report to the House of Commons on December 11, 1996.

However, the bill died on the Order Paper because, members will recall, the Prime Minister called an early election in April 1997, only three and a half years into his first mandate. But the legislation followed its course, and has now been sent here by the Senate. However, if it had passed third reading in the spring of 1997, the bill would already be in effect.

Bill S-4 basically seeks to implement old international conventions, namely the 1976 Convention on Limitations of Liability for Maritime Claims, the 1996 Protocol, the 1992 Protocol to amend the 1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, and the 1971 International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage.

We are talking about a period of more than 25 years. This is rather astonishing, given the context. I remember because I was on the Standing Committee on Transport in the fall of 1996. It was urgent and absolutely essential that this bill be passed in order to harmonize our legislation with that of other countries. This bill, without wishing to detract from it, is only now becoming law. In my opinion, this tells us that the government does not view shipping as very important.

There is another thing that should not be forgotten. During the 1993 election campaign, the Liberal Party candidates in the Quebec City area—including the present Prime Minister's chief of staff, who was a Liberal candidate in the riding of Québec—promised to hold a summit on the future of shipbuilding. Shipbuilding and shipping are related, in my opinion, because there cannot be any navigating until ships are built.

It happens that my riding is home to the most important shipyard in Quebec, the Lévis shipyard, which, in its heyday, had 3,000 employees, but which now has about 500. The Lévis shipyard is not the only shipyard in this situation. Other shipyards elsewhere in Canada, including Saint John Shipbuilding, the two Great Lakes shipyards and shipyards in western Canada, are also in a slump.

The Liberal candidates at the time, however, said that, given the number of jobs involved, something absolutely had to be done. But, one election later, we are still trying to pass a bill that will harmonize our legislation with an international convention Canada helped negotiate. But it is one of the last of the major nations to pass a bill harmonizing its legislation with this convention. The Liberal government therefore does not seem to think shipping is very important.

Coming back to the summit on the future of shipyards, when they were in opposition in 1993, the Liberals said that it was extremely important that a summit be held the following year, but they did not hold one.

The years went by, and then, in August of last year, the premiers met in St. Andrew's, at the invitation of the former premier of New Brunswick, Mr. McKenna. This bill was on the agenda, and all those present adopted the position that something had to be done quickly, and this was not just any old group, but all the premiers together, who were in agreement on this.

Over the months, a number of stakeholders, such as the Shipbuilders' Association of Canada, Canadian shipbuilders and shipyard workers, expressed their views. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Mrs. Verreault, CEO of Les Méchins shipyard in the Gaspé, who worked so hard to inform the various stakeholders and the government.

Unfortunately, cabinet is turning a deaf ear, so much so that, during their recent convention, Liberal supporters passed a resolution, reminding their own government that they absolutely have to do something for the shipping industry and especially the shipbuiding industry.

We all like to watch ships go by. As can be seen from Lévis and as many members from ridings located along the St. Lawrence can tell you, there are a lot of ships out there, but unfortunately, very few of them are built in Canada. It is a bit disappointing to see that the Liberal government fails to realize that this means of transportation, which is the most cost efficient, energy efficient and environmentally friendly, is important.

That is why members from this side of the House and some members from the other opposition parties, including the hon. member for Saint John, keep reminding the government that something absolutely has to be done for the shipping industry. All opposition parties agree on this. As I said before, even supporters of the Liberal Party of Canada agree on this. Despite this growing consensus, the government refuses to budge.

One of those who should normally address this issue is the Minister of Finance, but he does not dare to take part in this debate, because he says he is in a conflict of interest. He refuses to address the issue, because, as he puts it: “You know, I have an interest in Canada Steamship Lines. Even though it is held in trust, I cannot talk about it”. He neither defends nor promotes this industry, so nothing is being done. Nothing.

As a member representing a riding where there is a big shipyard, every time I hear opposition members talk about this issue, I hasten to support them. I try to do everything I can to contribute to every debate we have in this House that deals with shipping, the Canada Shipping Act and shipbuilding.

I have been speaking on this subject for five years. But until something is done about it, I think it is the duty of a member of Parliament to raise this issue in the House during debate to show Canadians how important it is.

I will quote some figures since time allows me to do so. Shipping is a vital component of trade. With an annual volume of 224 million tons, shipping contributes $2 billion to our GDP each year. But let us not forget that the vast majority of these ships are not Canadian.

I will quote more figures. Shipping would allow us to maximize the use of fuel—we do have to use fuel for various things—by 926% compared to other means of transportation. It would also allow us to reduce accident risks by 610%.

I will make a comparison, using as an example a ton of goods and five litres of fuel. Here are some telling figures. By plane, the distance covered would be six kilometres only; by truck, it would be 100 kilometres; by train, 333 kilometres; and by boat, 500 kilometres. The difference is huge.

These figures were quoted by Mrs. Verreault in a presentation she made on shipping. One laker, a ship that sails the Great Lakes, can carry 25,000 tons of grain, but it would take 500 railway cars carrying 50 tons each or 833 trucks carrying 30 tons each. These figures may seem incredible, but they are real. They were verified.

All I want to say is that we must give more consideration to shipping. I invite all my colleagues to do so.

Often, just before question period, we see more colleagues from different parties return to the House. Therefore, it is just the right time to get the attention of those who just came in before question period so that members on the government side listen to what the opposition has to say.

I also invite them to listen to what their constituents have to say. The millennium scholarship fund is fine, but what their constituents want for the next millennium is to have means of transportation that are more environmentally friendly.

International summits were held on that subject. This year, in Kyoto, there were discussions on the reduction of greenhouse gases, which have a detrimental effect on the ozone layer and the environment.

In conclusion, I invite all my colleagues, especially my Liberal colleagues, to urge cabinet members to put this issue on the agenda and to ask the industry minister to examine this and see to it that a shipbuilding policy is finally developed.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, April 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address once again Bill C-28, which is sponsored by the Minister of Finance.

We could examine several provisions, since this is an omnibus bill, but I am primarily concerned with clause 241. The reason is that the situation is not at all clear. Before me, several Bloc Quebecois members asked again that this issue, which leaves the impression there may be an apparent or real conflict of interest, be resolved, since it tarnishes somewhat the government's credibility when it comes to finance.

It is not normal to leave the impression that the Minister of Finance may be sponsoring a bill that could benefit a shipping company he fully owns, namely Canada Steamship Lines.

I represent the riding of Lévis, where we have a big shipyard.

As the member of Parliament for Lévis, I, like all my constituents, want to have the largest possible number of ships come through Lévis and the St. Lawrence Seaway. This is very important. Why? Because the more ships go through, the greater the chances for our shipyard to build ships. In fact, it would only be normal if Quebec's largest shipyard could build ships.

However, one of these international shipping companies happens to belong to the Minister of Finance. Of course, the minister asked someone else to manage his interests, which are currently held in trust. However, there is cause for concern when we see that even if he himself does not make speeches, and does not answer questions in the House on shipping, he is sponsoring this bill, and clause 241 is part and parcel of this bill.

The Bloc Quebecois would like to have this bill referred back to the finance standing committee so that the whole matter can be cleared up, because our questions have not yet been given clear answers. Of course, the ethics counsellor of the Prime Minister has appeared before the committee, but his testimony has been quite vague, and everything went very fast.

We heard the Prime Minister's response yesterday. He is satisfied with answers such as this “Everything has been cleared up, and there is no problem whatsoever since I, the Prime Minister of Canada, have full confidence in my finance minister. The matter is closed”. We do no think it is that simple. That is too easy a way out. We should be hearing arguments, we should be dealing with substance and examining all aspects of this clause. We should check the legal implications and see who is getting tax breaks and under what conditions.

We are dealing with companies operating in international shipping. Canada Steamship Lines is one of these companies. Some will say this is quite normal, since we are dealing here with shipping and transportation. Ships do travel, just like planes do. That reminds me of Mr. Trudeau who said that fish should be under federal jurisdiction because they do swim from one place to another.

So ships do in fact travel, and the problem is not international shipping. The issue we ware raising is that the finance minister, who owns a fleet of ships, although his assets are in trust while his is in office, stands to benefit not only now but once he no longer is in office. This is a very important issue, and the people have a right to know.

I would like to touch on another aspect. I have tried repeatedly to put shipbuilding on the government agenda again. When the current Minister of Finance was responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec, he systematically refused to answer any question either from myself or from any other member having anything to do with providing assistance to the shipyard in Lévis. His response was always that he had business interests in shipping. So, he does admit to having interests, but argues that they are held in trust.

The Minister of Finance is one of the most prominent ministers in government, but he hides behind his business interests in this area, claiming a conflict of interest, not to act in support of the shipbuilding and shipping industries, which are in serious difficulty today.

We should have a debate on this too, but one that would be, as suggested by the Liberals in 1993, a real summit on the future of shipyards in Canada. We could, for instance, update the study conducted more than ten years ago on the condition of the fleet at the international level to take a closer look at the financial assistance policies most nations have for their shipyards.

Our neighbour to the south is one of the leading shipbuilding and shipping countries in the world. The United States want nothing to do with OECD agreements regarding subsidies to shipyards. In Canada, we will not consider such a policy, because it appears we have reached an agreement with the other countries of the OECD.

However, the other members of the OECD are not following Canada's example and, as they see that the Americans are not accepting this agreement to no longer subsidize shipyards, they are going about it in other ways. Some European countries are doing like the Americans, waiting until everybody signs the agreement. In Canada, we are—if you will excuse the expression—the butt end of the joke, since, because we wanted to appear virtuous in the matter, we end up with a pretext to do nothing.

So, I will use this question to point that out, because with every opportunity I have, as the member for Lévis and to contribute to the future of shipping and shipbuilding, I always advocate a real shipping policy.

I will conclude by saying that we must—and quickly so—get all the facts on clause 241 and the consequences of it, because in the interim the effect is to mortgage what might be done to further advance the cause of shipping and shipbuilding in Canada.

[Rail Transport, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on February 20, the Minister of Transport announced the planned closure of the Lévis intermodal station, renovated in 1984 at a cost of $3 million.

We have recently learned that its replacement will be constructed in the Saint-Nicolas industrial park, which is 30 kilometers from the Lévis ferry and 35 kilometers from downtown Quebec City.

Does the minister really believe that construction of a new station so distant from the downtown areas of Lévis and Quebec City is going to do anything to help make VIA Rail operations any more cost-effective?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the response by the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis, and find it very apt. I would like to give her the opportunity to add to it, because I know she is very concerned about a true shipbuilding policy.

There is shipbuilding in my riding of Lévis and this therefore concerns me a great deal as well. I know there are other shipyards, for example at Les Méchins in the Gaspé. The hon. member is right. The government tried to get clause 241 by us in a huge bill that deals with just about everything.

I will always remember how, in 1993, when I was a first-time candidate for the Bloc Quebecois, the Liberals running in the Quebec City region—even the Prime Minister's present executive assistant— committed to holding a summit on the future of shipbuilding within a year of the election. Here we are five years later and still it has not materialized.

The Shipbuilders Association of Canada had made some representations, followed by some suggestions. The premiers followed up on this at St. Andrews last fall. Mr. McKenna, the New Brunswick premier at that time, chaired the conference and brought the matter up. At the recent Liberal convention, some young Liberals proposed a resolution on it.

So, everyone is calling for it, but no, they are trying to get a little clause 241 by us, one which the secretary of state says will change nothing and will not mean another penny. Very nice. Bills and clauses of bills that provide no one with anything. Are we going to swallow that story?

Would the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis be so kind as to tell me whether we, the Bloc Quebecois, really want a shipbuilding policy in Canada.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on expressing her concerns in the area of health.

She is from Manitoba, and I realize her comments must be based on the cuts that had to be made in her province as a result of the federal government cutting transfer payments. I know it had a major impact in her region.

Before putting my question to her, I would like to remind the House that, in Quebec, cuts in transfer payments for health forced the Quebec government to cut back radically, to rationalize and move toward ambulatory care, which caused major problems to regional health boards and health institutions.

People do not always understand why that is. In Quebec, it is obvious to people that managing hospitals and CLSCs is the responsibility of the provincial government, and that of health minister Rochon in particular. People tend to criticize him. But Minister Rochon is really doing his best with what is left after transfer payments to the provinces have been cut.

I would like to ask the hon. member, who looked into this, to be more specific about the situation in her province, Manitoba. All the provinces are affected. Yesterday, I saw reports on RDI concerning the Atlantic provinces. Clearly, federal cuts have had an adverse effect on the management of health institutions in every province in Canada.

But I would like her to focus on the impact in her province, on what she has noticed, and to give us some figures if she can. I realize she is not a member of the Manitoba government but I am convinced she could give us a good idea so that the Quebeckers who are listening can see that the true reason for the provincial cuts is the cuts imposed by this insensitive federal government.

[Division No. 112, March 25th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-36, the purpose of which is to implement certain provisions of the 1998 budget.

This bill contains a number of elements, but I shall address two of them in particular. First, the millennium scholarships. A foundation is being created to provide new scholarships to Canadian students starting in the year 2000, but it is being created immediately through this bill, taking $2.5 billion from this budget to structure the foundation so that it will be able to start awarding the scholarships in the year 2000.

This has been a pet project of the Prime Minister for some time, it seems. This is a project which the Minister of Human Resources Development is trying to defend, without much enthusiasm it seems, since it was obviously not his idea.

I have examined the various clauses in this bill, as it is the duty of every member to do when a new bill is introduced. I have noted a few details as I went along.

Clause 4 states:

1. The Foundation is not an agent of Her Majesty.

It is, therefore, a foundation that is not a direct agent of the government. In principle, this would be a totally independent foundation. I raise a question here, because it is nevertheless a foundation created by an act. Both Canada and the provinces have legislation providing for the creation of not-for-profit agencies or organizations, so a special bill does not need to be introduced.

When one is, this means there is a specific mandate, or the government wants to retain some power. Specifically, it retains power over the 15 foundation directors. Six, that is the chairperson and five other members, will be appointed by cabinet. These six will then appoint the others.

This much control right from the start means the government can choose who will be a member. Obviously, these will be friends of the regime, very probably people whom the Liberal government can trust. These people together will fill the positions on the board of directors with other people, who will likely enjoy the same Liberal confidence.

Some things are a bit odd. If we look, for example, at clause 13(5), we see when a member of the board ceases to be a member. The reasons given are fairly obvious, and it is rather odd that they take the trouble to identify them. The first point is “when a member dies”. This is rather self-evident. Some things in this bill are unnecessary.

But that is not the problem, as we know. The problem is that the foundation directly interferes in a provincial jurisdiction. The government is trying to say that the foundation interferes only indirectly. However, since it controls the members of the board of directors and appoints the first six, it is the federal government that will be distributing the scholarships to students. Why in the year 2000? Because it will look good and the government will have a high profile as it distributes cheques with maple leaves on them to thousands of students. It is after visibility.

On the subject, I would point out that this fits in well with the Liberal government's strategy of increasing its visibility through various means. There is of course the flag flap and the more than $23 million in the program the Minister of Canadian Heritage set up after the 1995 referendum. There was also the promotion of Canadian unity in the primary schools. This program cost $60 million including the flags.

Then there is the Canada Post Corporation, which changed its name. It cost $8 million to put “Canada Post” on the trucks.

I am the Bloc Quebecois critic on regional development. On March 4, the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec announced that the Federal Office of Regional Development—Quebec was changing its name. To what? To the Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions Agency.

This is all a visibility operation. The federal government is targeting Quebec in particular, because of the dreaded third referendum of course. It is seeking visibility any way it can, even if it means sending cheques directly to students.

I mentioned regional development, and since we are talking about the budget, I would like to draw attention to figures quoted in recent budgets, which seem rather odd to me. The budget allocated to the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec for administration increased by 16.9%, or $33 million. This is for the federal office for regional development in Quebec, which employs more than 260 people and which now has a new name.

The federal government plans to spend $380 million in Quebec without taking into account the strategy adopted by the Quebec government, which is to rely on decentralized organizations such as the RDCs, Quebec's regional development councils, and more locally, the local development councils, a new type of organization whose purpose is to ensure development at the local level within each RCM.

So, the budget was increased but, oddly enough, there is also a whole series of cuts. For example, there is $3,448,322 less for Quebec under the agreement on municipal infrastructures, $1,478,300 less for contributions for programs to improve manufacturing productivity, $1,256,943 less for the business development program, $959,890 less for the subsidiary agreement on tourism, $633,254 less for the innovations program, $845,362 less for the salmon economic development program, and $910,690 less for assistance programs in depressed areas.

I will skip the small figures. There is also $2,640,045 less for Montreal's industrial recovery, $4,462,000 less for Montreal's development fund, $635,000 less for industrial recovery in Southwest Montreal, and $40,000 less—a small cut, but still—for organizations promoting regional development.

So, the government came up with new names and approaches to increase its visibility, The federal office of regional development also has a new name, but again this is to increase visibility.

Finally, some cuts affect very specific programs. The overall increase is explained by the simple fact that Quebec had to deal with an ice storm. The amounts transferred by the President of the Treasury Board to the Federal Office of Regional Development have the effect of temporarily increasing the envelope for regional development, but if we look at each program individually, we realize that major cuts are being made.

All this leads me to say that the millennium scholarship fund, regional development and other issues which will be raised later on by some fellow Bloc members, are a smoke screen to hide the ever increasing interference by the federal government in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the member for Bourassa and I think he has gone too far. Props are not allowed on members' desks and he is talking about unparliamentary props.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, March 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am the member for Lévis. Everyone knows that we have an big shipyard in my riding. I felt an obligation to take part in the debate on Bill C-28. Although not all its clauses deal with shipping, there is one that does, and that is clause 241.

The purpose of the motion now before us moved by the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is to delete this clause. Why? For a number of reasons, one in particular. In our view, there appears to be a conflict of interest, because this bill was introduced by the Minister of Finance. Although his interests are held in a trust, he administers several shipping companies under one holding company known as Canada Steamship Lines.

This company has several ships, but also has subsidiaries. The main feature of these subsidiaries is that they are all over the map internationally. Clause 241 of the bill reads as follows:

1. the corporation has as its principal business in the year the operation of ships that are used primarily in transporting passengers or goods in international traffic—

I asked myself why tax benefits were being given only to those in international shipping and with offshore interests.

In my opinion, this did not seem fair to the others because, ideally, a country's policy should promote its citizen's interests.

A number of companies administer the finance minister's interests in the shipping sector. The minister's interests are held in trust. The minister has companies in various sectors, but primarily in the shipping sector, and he has had them for a long time.

Some who made comments in this House said the Minister of Finance may have made a technical mistake by introducing the bill, since only one clause deals with international shipping. And we are told the minister did not take part in the drafting of that clause. Instead, he is said to have asked the Secretary of State for Financial Institutions to do it. Therefore, the minister would not be in a conflict of interest, or in an apparent conflict of interest.

This explanation leaves a bad taste in the mouth. We did not get clear answers to the questions we asked in the House and in the finance committee. We noticed that Mr. Wilson, the ethics counsellor, sometimes made statements that differed from what he wrote. All this does not seem very open, consistent or logical.

The issue deserves a closer look. We were told it was a technical mistake, but the whole issue must be put in the proper context.

Clause 241 of Bill C-28 is similar in every respect to clause 151 of Bill C-69, which was introduced last year and which, oddly enough, died on the Order Paper when the election was called. The Minister of Finance or his officials cannot claim it was an oversight, since Bill C-69 was also sponsored by the minister, which means the same mistake was made twice.

Talking about the election, I will tell the House a short story. During the election campaign, someone phoned and asked me to point out, during my campaign, that one of the ships belonging to Canada Steamship Lines was flying the flag of the Bahamas. When I checked the next day, things had suddenly changed: the ship was now registered in Canada. As members can see, one's image is important during an election campaign.

But the election is now behind us and we can see that the precautions taken were short lived. The Liberals forgot about being cautious, with the result that the Minister of Finance is again sponsoring a similar bill.

Clause 241 is a small provision. It should have been the concern not only of the Minister of Finance, but of all ministers who are allegedly concerned about Quebec's interests, especially those who were elected in Quebec. This matter should also have been a concern in the maritimes, for everyone with an interest in the shipyards. In 1993, the Liberal candidates at the time made a formal commitment to hold a summit on Canada's shipping industry. It was to be held during the Liberals' first mandate, but they did nothing.

About a month before he resigned, the New Brunswick premier, Mr. McKenna, was the chair of the provincial premiers' conference in St. Andrews. What did he do in the face of the drop in the number of jobs in Saint John? There is a major shipyard there too. When the work on the frigates for national defence ended, the number of jobs at Saint John Shipbuilding also dropped, as it did in all the small shipyards the company had bought in the maritimes. The same thing happened in the west. The same thing happened in the Great Lakes region, where Ontario's two remaining shipyards are to be found.

In four years the government has not held a summit and has not developed any new shipping policy. This is why Mr. McKenna along with all the other provincial premiers called for a real policy on shipbuilding.

The member for Mercier, who kept a close eye on the deliberations at the Liberal convention on the weekend, told me that the young Liberals moved a resolution to have the government establish a policy on shipbuilding.

I would therefore like to take this opportunity to remind those on the other side, the party in power at this time, of their promises of 1993, of the resolution passed by the young convention delegates this past weekend, of the adoption of a common position by all premiers at Saint Andrews last fall, promoted particularly by the former premier of New Brunswick, Mr. McKenna.

It seems to me that, in response to all that, the Minister of Industry ought to ask the Standing Committee on Industry to examine closely a new policy on shipbuilding. This policy ought to take into consideration the suggestions the Shipbuilders' Association of Canada has been making for at least a year, which boil down to four points. First of all, an improved export funding and loan guarantee program, similar to the one in the United States, should be implemented. Second, they call for new vessels built in Canadian shipyards to be exempted from the present Revenue Canada leasing regulations.

There should also be a reimbursable tax credit, somewhat similar to the Quebec government's measures on ships and drilling platforms that have been in place for at least a year. Finally, they call for elimination of the unilateral aspects of NAFTA which allow the Americans to send their ships here while we are not allowed to do the opposite.

I would point out very briefly that the United States has a very advantageous policy for shipbuilding. They do not, unfortunately, want to join with the countries calling for an end to subsidies. Consequently, for the past 20 years at least, the European countries involved in shipbuilding continue to subsidize their shipbuilders, as do the Asian countries.

Canada wants to play a lead role by saying that it will not do what they are trying to negotiate internationally. But, since we are one of only a few countries who do not, our shipbuilding industry is in the worst position of any in the world.