Antoine Dubé

[Cn Commercialization Act, June 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, since I represent the riding of Lévis, where 500 people work for CN in Charny, and since one of the main assets to be privatized under Bill C-89 is the Pont de Québec, one of whose supporting structures is located in my riding, it is quite easy to understand why I wish to participate in the third reading debate on this bill to privatize CN.

When this bill was tabled in the House, my first reaction was to consult with my constituents, with workers and their families, with the people who live with CN workers in Charny, to find out what they thought. The first comment I heard took me by surprise. These people were not against privatizing CN for the following reason: They thought it could not be any worse than the way CN has been managed in the last 10 years. Although they were not enthusiastic about privatization, they almost preferred this option to the way CN has been managed, especially in recent months.

In this context, the House will remember Bill C-77, which forced CN, VIA Rail and CP employees back to work, and the three unprecedented steps taken to cut off debate on this bill in the House, while Ogilvie workers have been waiting for two years for an anti-scab law that could speed up settlement of their dispute.

The reason why workers faced with a bludgeon law, with several years of mismanagement at CN, with CN management's failure to listen to them, are not against privatization is obviously because they figure that purgatory is better than hell.

I would also like to recall a point which was not emphasized much here. After the unprecedented promotional effort by CN's president, Paul Tellier, during the last election campaign, which took him to the U.S. for the World Congress of Railway Companies held in Louisiana, a colour picture was published in Le Soleil . I will never forget this, for Tellier had been advocating selling CN at reduced price and at any cost. He was telling everyone that the company was for sale because-what a great selling feature-of lack of productivity and the fact that the business was not doing well. It was so terrible; CN was unprofitable. He said it carried losses of about $80 million a year, adding that it was unacceptable and that CN should be sold as soon as possible.

That was during the election campaign and, at the time, the Liberals never said a word about privatizing CN. There is no mention of this in their red book.

In this context, a few weeks after Bill C-77 was passed "full steam ahead"-I am using this expression deliberately since we are dealing with railways-Bill C-89 was introduced. And this morning, as we get ready to vote in third reading on Bill C-89, there is a transport bill, whose number I do not know because I think it has not been given one yet.

What does this piece of legislation say in essence? Having attended the briefing session the officials delegated by the minister gave while he was tabling his bill in this House, I can tell you what it says. It says basically one thing: deregulation. In the neo-Liberal mind, this means eliminate as many regulations as possible and make things as easy as possible for the public sector.

However, my review of the history of Canada and Quebec shows that Canadian railways were almost at the origin of the Canadian Confederation. We all recall the fine speeches made by key political figures of the time, by Sir John A. Macdonald in particular, who insisted that the vast country of Canada should

have a public railway system linking every region and that railways were almost sacrosanct to this country.

So what is Bill C-89 doing? It is taking away this sacred value by privatizing the railway system. CN will become a private company like any other. However, the purpose of Bill C-89, and particularly that of the new transport legislation which was before the House this morning, is to make life for private companies even easier than was the case for Crown corporations. Let me relate something quite pertinent.

When CN was a public corporation, under the 1987 and 1902 acts, all agreed that the legislation was limiting, that it was harsh. However, we had a crown corporation under the control of the Minister of Transport, and we had some influence in that we could democratically express our dissatisfaction whenever an election was held.

But now, at the same time as the decision to sell CN is made, the government tables a bill to deregulate. Why? It is to be able to face U.S. competition by allowing CN's new shareholders and managers to compete with Americans.

At first glance, that decision may seem to make sense, but there is a danger. Indeed, the Bloc Quebecois feels, as the Reform Party pointed out, that Bill C-89 is dangerous because, while the government is deregulating in American fashion, in a free trade context, it leaves a former public corporation totally in the hands of the private sector. Moreover, the government gives Americans an opportunity to control that corporation. If the Americans have that possibility, they will look after their own interests, which is perfectly normal. This concerns us.

This is why, even using the approach proposed by the Reform Party, Canadians from all regions, including Quebecers, should have been given priority in terms of buying at least a majority of the shares. But no, the Liberal argues that there is not enough money, not enough assets, not enough people in the Canadian private sector who are interested in buying the corporation and that, consequently, it has to open the door to foreign investors.

We are told that the assets total some $2.5 billion. We are also told by a company hired by CN to evaluate these assets that Canadians represent a potential of only $750 million. So, the government privatizes, but admits from the outset that the former public corporation, which was set up to serve Canada's economic interests from east to west at the time the Canadian confederation was established, will now be under foreign control.

Quite frankly, I find it very hard to get enthusiastic about this change. Although I am a sovereignist, I cannot stand by and let the rest of Canada be dispossessed of one of its main legacies, the railways.

I cannot help but notice that Liberal members across the way are giving up their turns and becoming strangely silent on the subject of Canada's main railway company, which they want to privatize and risk leaving in American or foreign hands.

Although their silence may be due to discomfort, I get the impression that it is more likely caused by their desire to go on holiday as soon as possible and by this government's carelessness and lack of vision.

As I said at the beginning and as I reminded the House, the Bloc Quebecois is not necessarily against the principle of privatizing CN, but not under these conditions, which may lead to possible majority control by foreigners. We were against this. We expressed our position by tabling our amendment.

We also said that CN is evading its responsibilities by not giving adequate guarantees to CN employees, who have faced repeated cuts in recent years. These employees live in a climate of insecurity in which the top manager, Paul Tellier, was paid a huge salary-$345,000 per year, a home for which he received a no-interest loan, and handsome perks-to travel around the world promoting CN, although "depromoting" or demoting-if I may use these words-would be more adequate terms since he explained how terrible this company was.

As far as Bill C-77 is concerned, we listen to and watch the advertising, we read the CN report with its nice colours, and everything seems to be fine. Although we cannot show it, it is red but has nothing to do with the red book. It refers to a shift in policy.

The 1994 CN report, which I saw this morning at the briefing, says that everything is hunky-dory at CN. In a few months, we made $279 million in profits. That is quite something. Yet, CN must be sold as quickly as possible.

Can you imagine the effect of such an announcement on employees, on Canadians, on Quebecers? It took the incredible Mr. Tellier a year to accomplish the feat of making this supposedly money-losing company profitable. But he wants to sell it any way. I am trying to draw a parallel, in order to understand.

When the Liberals came to office, the Conservatives had decided to privatize Pearson airport in Toronto. The Liberals, with the Prime Minister in the lead, said that they would not stand for that. Why? For one thing, Pearson airport was said to be one of the only, if not the only airport in Canada to turn a profit. Not only was the main airport in terms of traffic, but it was also profitable. Why privatize this airport then if it can bring in revenue for the government?

In his report, Mr. Tellier says that CN is now a profitable business. After four or five years of making losses, now that the company is making a profit, it should be sold. Let us look to the future. This company must be sold at all costs as soon as possible; so, let us pass a bludgeon bill.

Under the terms of the mediator's report released on June 14 or 15, CN employees have to accept the conditions set, indirectly, by the government. There is this urgent need to sell CN before the fall regardless of the profits that can be made. I must confess that the Liberal government's logic eludes me at times. It is hard to see.

At the same time, we must look at something else. Small airports like the one in Sainte-Foy, Quebec, which while being called international apparently are not profitable, are also to be privatized. Unless the municipalities and regions take it over-I took this example and, in this particular case, activities would be commercialized without ownership being affected-but there is also Rimouski, Mont-Joli, Baie Comeau, all those are not turning profits.

The Minister of Transport is asking local communities to take over the operation of these airports, otherwise, after a while, they will be closed down. Where is the logic in that? You do not turn a profit, we close you down. CN is turning a profit, yet it is being sold. Why? It does not make any sense to me.

I am no expert in transport, but people ask me why this change in policy, why sell CN now that business is good after several bad years. They cannot understand this change, especially after the Chrétien government prevented the privatization of Pearson airport.

I do not know if I have much time remaining. Two minutes. That is just enough time to tell you about the two pillars of the Pont de Québec.

The other night, between 1.30 and 2 a.m., the hon. member for Louis-Hébert and myself raised the issue of the Pont de Québec to try to influence the government regarding the privatization of CN's assets. After all, this is a majority government and it can make any decision it wants. We mentioned the fact that Canadian railway companies are true symbols. The old Pont de Québec is also a symbol of federalism in our region.

However, the bridge is falling into decay, just like federalism, at least in the Quebec City region. The bridge is falling into ruins. On a more serious note, Madam Speaker, do you think that a private company will be interested in investing $40 million to restore the old bridge? Or will that company say: the federal government built the bridge, so it is its responsibility; if it wants us to repair it in the medium term, then it has to give us the $40 million required.

We tabled in this House an amendment which essentially said: we will support privatization, but will the government guarantee that the $40 million will be paid to CN, so that work on the bridge can start within a year? The government never gave us an answer. No answer. In that context, and given the social conditions of the employees, as well as the lack of respect shown for Canada's railway heritage, the official opposition will oppose this bill.

[2002 Winter Games, June 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon around 1.20 p.m., a large number of Quebecers will be riveted to their televisions and radios to find out the olympic committee's decision regarding the location of the 2002 winter games.

Bloc members are convinced that the Quebec City region offers the best sites, unsurpassed cultural events, and a population full of warmth and joie de vivre.

We wish to commend and thank all members of the Québec 2002 organization, who worked relentlessly to promote this most challenging collective project for the people of Quebec.

Good luck, Quebec City.

[Cn Commercialization Act, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in view of the late hour, I will be brief.

Given the fact that, in my riding, there are 500 CN workers affected by this, I would like to support the proponent of the motion, our critic for transport, the member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans. I know, for having spoken with these workers, that people who have worked for CN have worked hard for that company. We are reminded of those who work there now, but that is a long story; for them, this is an historic moment. I think the least I can do is to support this motion.

[Cn Commercialization Act, June 15th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are inviting me to justify my presence in this debate. If the hon. member for Louis-Hébert can justify his presence because one of the bridge pillars is located in his riding, I must add that there is another one in my riding.

This bridge was built in 1917 and, in the beginning, it was used to allow trains to cross the St. Lawrence River. It is a river, I say to the whip of the Liberal Party. It is not a brook, as my colleague for Beauport was saying. If ever this bridge were to collapse through lack of maintenance-I do not want to make people feel uneasy about this-if ever it were to collapse and CN trains could not go over it, imagine the detour we would have to make in order to ship our goods. We would have to go from Quebec City to Montreal, and then to the Maritimes.

This does not make sense. This is unacceptable. Of course, the bridge may not collapse in the next 20 years, but its physical appearance is deteriorating to such an extent that people in the Quebec City region tell us that this bridge belongs to the federal government and has become a symbol of the decrepit state of federalism in Quebec.

This is getting a reaction from some of the people here. If members of the current Liberal federal government wanted to enhance their visibility before the referendum, they should do as the coalition suggests because every day, every person who comes to see me-not only people from the Quebec City region but also foreign visitors-note the state of disrepair of this symbol. I think it would be to the Liberal Party's advantage-I am giving them some valuable advice-to ensure that the bridge is being maintained, to give it a new image.

Coalition members should also remind them that this would create 200 jobs over six years. Is this not right, my dear colleague? Over six years. This would allow the bridge to be renovated and create jobs, in addition to the purchase of materials. There would be an economic impact. We are looking for ways to put people back to work, for useful projects, and the Pont de Québec would fit the bill.

This would cost $40 million but we must spend it. Strangely enough, an engineer told me this week that CN asked a U.S. firm to study the whole matter. The Americans recognize the value of this bridge. They took an interest in it and even gave it an architecture and engineering award. It has been described as one of the eight wonders of the world. That is quite something.

But the wonder does not impress anyone any more. On the contrary, it has become an object of shame. Something must be done, but it does not make sense to leave this in the hands of a company that will be privatized.

No privatized company will want to invest $40 million to repair this bridge, unless it is forced into it. Nobody will do it. So, we are asking the federal government to act as the owner, not as a tenant, because it really is the owner, and it is responsible for these repairs.

Finally, the amendment proposed by our colleague, the hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, is valid, as the federal government saw fit to remove the CN Tower from CN's assets. If it is good for Toronto, it should be good for Quebec City. I will end here, as it is quite late.

[Education And Social Assistance, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since the minister has yet to get together with his provincial counterparts, will he now pledge not to impose new principles or national standards if a province objects to them?

[Education And Social Assistance, June 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. In its recently tabled report on Bill C-76, the Liberal majority on the finance committee states, and I quote: "The Committee recognizes the obligation of the Minister of Human Resources Development to develop, through mutual consent with the provinces, principles and objectives for the social assistance and post-secondary education components of the CHST".

What does the minister intend to do with the finance committee's recommendation, which insists on his obligation to develop national standards for education and social assistance?

[Quebec City Bridge, June 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, because of the federal government's inertia when it comes to adequately maintaining the Quebec City bridge, 25 organizations, including Quebec City authorities and municipalities located on the south shore, formed a coalition to ask the federal Minister of Transport to do what is necessary to save and promote this part of our national heritage.

The coalition is also asking that the bridge be excluded from CN's assets for the purposes of the bill on the privatization of that railway company, as was done in the case of the CN tower, in Toronto.

Quebecers are more and more fed up with the federal government's double standard policy.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, who is a fellow member of the Committee on human resources development, is right to recall something that happened at Christmas time. Members of different parties sang together. This shows, on our part at any rate, that our intention is not to fight against individuals, against other Canadians, because we do not dislike them, we do like them, even though some are even more likable than others. We like them a lot and we feel that some of them do like us too.

That is not the problem. The problem is with the system, a two tier system, a federal system that might be suitable for the rest of Canada, but not for Quebecers. Even though you do like us, even though we keep repeating the same things to you, you do not understand how important it is for us to manage the areas of provincial jurisdiction mentioned in the constitution, like education. Yet everything was spelled out in this contract concluded in 1867 between the two founding peoples which had agreed upon that.

You know very well that since World War II, the federal government, through its spending power, has been interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction, and Quebec resents that. Yes, we are a different people, even though we do like you. This is not about fighting each other. That is why the Bloc Quebecois has stressed the need to maintain an economic union with the rest of Canada, and to propose such a union.

As for the management of public finances, and our taxes, as for what we feel is important to us like education and job training, we would like to manage that by ourselves. We are telling you again. You do like us, but you do not understand. If the minister or his predecessors understood or cared to give the impression they understand, the problem would easily be solved. The government could take the funds earmarked for occupational training, give tax points to Quebec, and set national standards for the rest of Canada.

We are not trying to paralyse the rest of Canada. We simply want to use the powers that were granted to us in 1867. Those are Quebec's historical demands.

The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi is well aware of that, since he is from Quebec. All Quebec governments, including the Liberal government of which his brother was a member, demanded that tax points for occupational training be handed over. He should understand. He knows what this is all about. But there is the party line. The party line held fast despite all the demonstrations witnessed by my two honourable colleagues who sat on the human resources development committee. Yesterday, they voted with the government on Bill C-76 implementing the budget, despite all they had seen and heard, like tables being overturned in Montreal, and demonstrations in Vancouver.

I went to 23 of the 27 cities you mentioned, and you know perfectly well that there were demonstrations in all of them. People do not want cuts in social programs. They say our deficit and our debt are not due to social programs, and that the roots of the problem are to be found elsewhere, particularly in our tax system.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, as official opposition critic for youth and training, to talk about the motion introduced by my colleague for Mercier and dealing with the Department of Human Resources Development estimates, more particularly with employment services.

The first thing I would like to say is that grants and contributions under the employment and insurance program are presented in a misleading manner. Looking at pages 12.6 and 12.7 of the main estimates, you might think that grants and contributions to the program have increased from $1,281,552,000 in 1994-1995 to $1,354,381,000 in 1995-1996.

However, the total of grants and contributions for 1995-1996 includes grants to individuals under the Atlantic groundfish strategy, as well as contributions to provincial governments for the older worker adjustment program which were not there previously. The same amount for 1994-1995 does not include these grants and contributions and that explains the increase from one year to the next.

If you take these two items in consideration for both years, the total of grants and contributions decreases from $1,614,444,000 in 1994-1995 to $1,354,381,000 in 1995-1996. It is therefore a decrease of $260 million or about 16 per cent. The most important cuts are in the employment programs and in the Atlantic groundfish strategy.

We are particularly interested in the cuts in the employment programs. As the auditor general has often said, the departmental expenditure plans are more a way of hiding things than of informing people. The Department of Human Resources Development is more guilty than others in that regard, since it is presenting the information in a confusing and incomplete way.

When the time comes to collect taxes, the federal government is very clear. But when it has to explain what it does with the money, all of a sudden, everything is obscure.

Table 6, on page 2-24, shows that Quebec is not receiving enough of the employment programs' funds. According to these statistics, Quebec gets, in fact, 21 per cent of the federal funds in that field, when it accounts for 24 per cent of the Canadian population.

The Department's estimated manpower training spending, funded by the unemployment insurance fund, should reach about $1.9 billion in 1995, $521 million of which is for Quebec, which represents, in this case, a little more than its share of the Canadian population, that is 27.4 per cent of the total spending.

Since, in 1995, the regular benefits in Quebec cost $3.4 billion out of a total for Canada of $10.3 billion, which amounts to 33 per cent of the total, Quebec stands to lose $113 million.

Moreover, the federal government perpetuates duplication and overlap by putting in place new programs, such as the youth service corps and the young trainee program. It shows clearly that Ottawa does not want to get out of that area of provincial jurisdiction. As well, the federal government tried to interfere in the area of education last fall by creating the fund for initiatives in the acquisition of knowledge and the office of learning technologies.

Even if the federal government is hiding its intervention by avoiding the word "education", it is precisely in that field of provincial jurisdiction that it wants to intervene more and more actively, as we can see from the new initiatives.

Speaking of figures, I would have liked to dwell more on the resources given to young Canadians, but I must say that getting those numbers is not easy. I am not talking about what was announced in a press release, for example, when the minister made public a certain number of initiatives last year. They were implemented later on, but we could not get the figures and details on where these services are offered and how much money was spent.

We were unable to get the figures for this year and last, although we asked for them on several occasions; we even asked the minister when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. We can wonder why budget estimates concerning programs related to youth initiatives are not included in the government's estimates. Yet, they involve expenditures of several millions. This is also true in other areas of the department.

Thus last year we had to call each and every manpower centre in Quebec to ask for the amounts of money available for manpower development programs in the whole of Quebec because there was no breakdown of this information by province.

A few weeks ago, at the Human Resources Development Committee, I also asked senior officials about cuts in the amounts allocated to education support. There is a $262 million reduction from 1994-95 to 1995-96. Again last week we were

told that we would get the answer a little later because all the information had not been compiled.

Is the answer so complicated that the minister, his staff and his high officials are not able to give us an answer? Or is it because they have something to hide? If public servants cannot cope, why cut 5,000 jobs at Human Resources Development, a department which is precisely committed to finding jobs for those who are out of work, the unemployed and welfare recipients? We could also ask why new structures like the Youth Service Corps are created if we are about to close manpower centres?

In Quebec the minister says that the decision has not been taken. Yet, all employees presently working in Labour Canada centres already know that there will be a reduction in the number of manpower centres in Quebec. The number of regional centres is expected to drop from 100 to 30. This is not very encouraging for people who would like to receive employment services from the Department of Human Resources Development.

The department is cutting its spending, but is also cutting grants to organizations dedicated to employment development, particularly among young people. In the last two years, a 15 per cent cut has been announced. Yet, these organizations had a placement rate of 75 per cent, which is significantly higher than many government services. What happened?

Contracts are for one year only, and we saw recently, at the end of the fiscal year, that the minister delayed giving an answer for the current year, with the result that, in some cases, it took two weeks to get an answer for the current year, with a warning that, this time, the contract would end on March 31. So, this suggested that further cuts might be made in the next budget. Of course, such cuts were announced in the budget. This suggests that further cuts will be made, beyond this 15 per cent.

Meanwhile, as the government wants to make cuts to manpower centres in Canada and has already announced some cuts in the positions of counsellors, the very people who are there to help the unemployed find jobs, as it is cutting grants to organizations dedicated to employment development, particularly among young people, by 15 per cent, last year, it set up a new program called the youth service corps. I want to remind people that this is a new name given to a previous program, killed by the Conservatives when they took office, which was called Katimavik. This program seemed to be very dear to Senator Jacques Hébert, whose hunger strike conducted on that issue was extensively commented on by the media.

Katimavik was re-established under the new name of youth service corps, but for what purposes? Occupational activities for youngsters like cleaning river banks, community projects, some travelling. In the meantime, very productive organisations providing help to people looking for a job had their budget cut.

Some are very clever when playing with numbers. For example, the minister told us not long ago that larger amounts of money were invested in the creation of summer jobs for students. It is always the same thing. He gets this result by adding data from the summer component of the young Canada works program and from the challenge program, which now has a new name. By compiling these data, he is able to claim that we spend as much and maybe more than last year on summer jobs for young people, although Young Canada Works is intended for much younger people and is offering activities which have nothing to do with any future occupation.

As I just demonstrated, in the area of social programs, the government tried to give less money, provide fewer services, and allocate fewer resources to help people find jobs. What is even more serious, however, is that the government-despite trying to blame the situation on its efforts to reduce the deficit and repay the debt, which will soon reach $548 billion-is pursuing another strategy that is totally inconsistent with this. It is trying to interfere to a greater extent in areas of provincial jurisdiction, as it did yesterday by passing Bill C-76.

In addition to implementing some budget provisions, Bill C-76 allows the government not only to maintain health care standards but also to set new national standards in education and job training.

I am talking about the bill that was passed yesterday, but we saw it coming as early as last year, when the government clearly stated in its first budget its intention of moving in this direction. Besides the government, there are the advisory committees such as the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, which, in its report submitted to the Prime Minister in May 1994, states that it is imperative that national standards of excellence be set with regard to the acquisition of skills and knowledge essential to good economic performance. After recently reading this little known report and checking with this advisory board, we realized that this study was done at the request of the Prime Minister's office.

Since federal funding for education comes mainly from the Human Resources Development Department, one would have expected this issue to be referred to the committee responsible for this department, on which I sit, or another related committee. Instead, it falls to an advisory committee on science and technology to examine the issue, at the Prime Minister's specific request.

If this report was completed in May 1994, this means that it was in preparation for a number of weeks or months before that. It is obvious that, almost as soon as it came to power, the new

government had the clear intention of interfering further in the area of education.

I recognize two government members who were on the team assigned to travel across Canada. They noticed, as I did, and this is a fact, that as far as national standards on education and other matters are concerned, throughout Canada except Quebec, and more in Alberta than anywhere else, people expected the federal government to step in because they were getting the feeling that their provincial government was going to the dogs and starting to cut social programs. I realized that, in the rest of Canada, Canadians did not care as much as we do about the fact that the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over certain areas, such as education, health and social assistance.

However, in Quebec, the committee was able to see that it was just the opposite. Because of our distinctiveness, culture and history, because we are a nation, we want education to remain under provincial jurisdiction in Quebec.

The rest of Canada may change its views on social programs or education if it pleases, but we want to manage all of that ourselves. Since World War II, the federal government has been using its spending power, its power to collect taxes and redistribute funds in the areas I just mentioned: health and education in particular. It dips in the pockets of every taxpayer in Canada, including Quebec, to pay for that.

We demand our share, there is nothing wrong with that. Ideally, you know, tax points should be transferred to us. This is what we want. Quebec's National Assembly is unanimous in requesting this. Our claims began not even under the PQ government, but under the previous Liberal government. On many occasions, we asked for all our tax points for education and for job training.

I spoke about youth unemployment. We must not forget that more than 400,000 Canadians under 24 are presently unemployed. In Quebec, where 18 per cent of young people in this age group are unemployed, the situation is particularly worrisome. Add to that people on welfare. After last year's budget, unemployment rates have gone down, but because of cuts in the UI program, there are few additional jobs available.

That is why the Liberal member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce voted yesterday against his own government, claiming that social programs are being destroyed. Referring to his long experience in the House, he said that the proposals were completely contrary to what was done under Trudeau and Pearson. Everything they did was destroyed in two years. He opposed the measures with good reason.

I am not of those who encourage parliamentary dissent, but in view of the reasons given by the hon. member, I think that it is worth mentioning.

Unemployment insurance cuts are being made in three ways: by extending the eligibility period, by shortening the benefit period, and by reducing the benefit rate. More and more unemployed can no longer claim UI benefits and are forced on to the welfare rolls.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to mention a particular case in my riding, which reflects the unemployment situation and which we have not heard from in quite a while. I am referring to the MIL Davie shipyard. Two years ago, 3,000 people were working at that shipyard which, like Saint John Shipbuilding, used to build frigates, military vessels. However, the number of orders has dropped since the end of the cold war.

As you know, during the election campaign, the government now in office promised "jobs, jobs, jobs". Yet, the figures show that there are no more jobs now than before. Moreover, a large number of existing jobs are not secure. Young people and women seeking to rejoin the labour force are the two groups most affected by this situation.

What happened to the shipyard? Nothing. The federal government indirectly gave $30 million to the Magdalen Islands shipping company for a used vessel. The Quebec government decided to do something and have a new vessel built, so as to create a number of jobs.

However, it is terrible to see 3,000 people in a riding like mine suddenly lose their jobs. Yet, since the local Canada manpower centre, along with Quebec, set up a reclassification committee, the unemployment data for the Quebec City region were not overly affected. There was a 0.4 per cent increase over a one year period. So the unemployment rate went from 12.4 per cent, in 1994, to 12.8 per cent this year.

MIL Davie workers were affected by the UI cuts. In Quebec, and that includes the Quebec City region, an additional 31,000 people are on the welfare rolls because of the cuts to the UI program.

I know that some questions will follow. This will give me an opportunity to conclude.

[Quebec City Convention Centre, May 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said smugly that if Quebec City did not receive federal funding to build a new arena it was because its separatist mayor had decided to spend the money on something else.

Once again, the Prime Minister is so intent on putting sovereignists in their place that he simply forgets the facts. Construction of a convention centre in Quebec City was a first and foremost a promise by the provincial Liberals that came to fruition only because of the insistent lobbying by the Prime Minister's current chief of staff and the present Minister of

Foreign Affairs, in other words, because another Liberal government got involved. The Prime Minister ought to know as well that Quebec City is not investing a single penny in the construction of this convention centre, which is being financed strictly by the Government of Quebec and the government in Ottawa.

Finally, I will repeat what was said by Mayor L'Allier and I quote: "We are penalized for not showing the flag. This is hardly what I would call democratic, and the real republic-"