Antoine Dubé

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 11th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak again to Bill C-22, which concerns the privatization of the airport in Toronto. Pearson Airport is the largest in Canada. It employs 15,000 people and is used by 20 million passengers annually. It adds an estimated $4 billion to the economy of the province of Ontario each year.

The government was right to cancel the contract signed by the previous Conservative government during the last election campaign. However, the real question we must ask about Bill C-22 is this: Why does the Liberal government want to pay compensation to parties who feel their rights have been violated as a result of the present government's decision to cancel the contract awarded by the previous Conservative government to privatize Pearson Airport?

In my opinion, a government has no right to consider paying compensation to individuals who took the risk of signing a controversial contract in the middle of an election campaign and who are all in good financial shape, at a time when this government is cutting or intends to cut social programs. Or else it should apply the same principle to the cancellation of the helicopter contract or to any business or individual penalized by the coming into effect of new legislation.

For instance, there is a small business in my riding to which the government might consider paying compensation. This particular business packaged cigarettes.

Bill C-11, which was recently tabled and debated in the House, will prohibit the sale of cigarettes in packages containing fewer than 20 cigarettes. This particular business, whose headquarters are in my riding, was the only one in Quebec that manufactured packages containing five cigarettes. It will have to close down as soon as this legislation comes into effect, since it is strictly engaged in the manufacture and sales of packages of five cigarettes.

I am not saying that I am against legislation to limit tobacco sales to young people. That is not what I am saying. My point is just that all of a sudden, a business operating legally and in good faith sees its existence jeopardized by the implementation of a new act. Yet, no compensation is provided for in this case.

This start-up company cannot afford lobbyists. Does this mean that there is a double standard with regard to financial compensation granted by the government?

Many more examples could be provided; in fact, my colleagues have mentioned several already in this debate.

It seems clear and obvious that the affluent members of this society stand to gain more from their dealings with the government than the rest of the population. While the Pearson Airport contract appeared to favour mainly Conservative Party backers, many of these also contributed to the Liberal Party of Canada fund.

The most influential lobbyists are often former high-ranking officials in the federal system. They have established excellent relationships with officials in various departments, senior officials in particular. This means they have easy access to government policy makers and can thus position themselves faster and have an advantage over other firms. Lobbyists work for the most affluent members of our society. They care very little for ordinary people and even less for the unemployed and welfare recipients. They would rather reap the benefits at the expense of the less fortunate segment of our society.

People who attend the $1,000-a-plate dinners still organized by the old parties are often lobbyists. Who else would pay $1,000 without hoping to gain some favour in the short term? Ordinary citizens cannot afford to attend such meetings.

Despite the change in government, it appears that nothing has really changed. Today's government seems as much in the pay of big corporations and their lobbyists as the former government.

Will they have the courage to prove otherwise by refusing to pay any compensation to those who hoped to get richer in the Pearson Airport privatization project?

The best way to change this would be to pass a law to prohibit financing of political parties by businesses or interest groups. This government should draw inspiration from the provisions of the Quebec electoral law that deal with political party financing. The hon. member for Richelieu's motion to restrict political party financing in Canada should move this government to pass a new law. The hon. member for Richelieu moved that the government legislate to give only private citizens the right to finance political parties and to limit contributions to $5,000 a year. The main objective of this motion is to ban corporate financing, which puts political parties at the mercy of lobbyists for powerful companies that donate several thousands of dollars and expect favours in return.

The same principle applies to individuals.

Wealthy individuals give a lot to some political parties, always for the purpose of getting something in return. The reason for such a motion as this is to make the relations between individuals and political parties more fair and equitable, because someone earning less than $30,000 a year cannot afford to contribute $10,000 to a political party, whereas someone else whose annual income is over $100,000 can of course give more.

Besides, big companies which can afford to give thousands and thousands of dollars to political parties also can afford to hire lobbyists who work to get something for the money which their bosses invested in the political parties.

Values like honesty, integrity and openness should guide political and democratic life. Well, in the Pearson Airport affair, there is a glaring lack of openness. We are faced with a shady deal that is a disgrace to the democratic spirit which should guide politics in this country.

The citizens and voters who sent us here to sit in this House must wonder whose interests we really serve when they see how our governments act. Men and women vote, not banks, unions or companies. Therefore, it is time that political parties stop being at the mercy of their financial backers.

Let me give you the example of the Bloc Quebecois, which won 75 per cent of the seats in Quebec, yet only accepted contributions from individuals. The Bloc has shown to other federal political parties that the important thing is not to get corporate financing but to defend legitimate ideas. The other parties will not go bankrupt if the motion tabled by the hon. member for Richelieu is passed. In fact, it will give them an opportunity to get closer to their constituents.

One thing is certain: The House must implement measures to avoid a repeat of the Pearson Airport scandal.

[Mil Davie Shipyard, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister should remember that the Prime Minister and his chief of staff saw the business plan before and during the election campaign. Now that he has everything in front of him, now that all the interested groups-the unions and the Conseil du patronat-in the Quebec City area are in agreement, what he is waiting for before deciding?

[Mil Davie Shipyard, May 6th, 1994]

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

The General Investment Corporation, the main shareholder of MIL Davie, yesterday approved the firm's business plan, which was also forwarded to the federal government. The General Investment Corporation said it would be willing to add $135 million to help revive MIL Davie.

Will the minister admit that by postponing his decision, the way he has done for the last six months, on the construction of a ferry for the Magdalen Islands and on the development of the smart ship, he is also postponing this shipyard's recovery and putting in jeopardy thousands of jobs in the Quebec City area?

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, on April 22, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister a question about the federal contribution to Quebec 2002. That was a two-part question. First, I asked her when her government would appoint a negotiator to determine with Quebec 2002 the amount of funding needed.

"Soon", answered the Deputy Prime minister. On this issue, I am quite satisfied, since the daily newspaper Le Soleil reported, on April 30, that the federal government had appointed, a day or two before, Mr. Laurent Tremblay, executive director of the Quebec office of the Department of Canadian Heritage, to act as spokesperson for the federal government. One week is not that bad a delay and we are satisfied with this part of the answer.

But we fail to see why it took six months and a question in the House for the federal government to reply to an organization's request. Six months is a long time. Will we need to press the government in the House on all issues so that they finally reply to organizations' requests?

We were satisfied with the answer we got this time. A negotiator was appointed within a week. Unfortunately, negotiations have not started yet and the deadline for Quebec 2002 has not been changed. Indeed, the final bids must be in by August 18. They would like a definite answer from the federal government within the next month, by the middle of June.

That was the second part of my question. I asked the Deputy Prime Minister if she was prepared to give a mandate to a negotiator modelled on what was done for Calgary in terms of federal assistance when it bid on the 1988 Winter Games. I have not received an answer to my question, either from the government or from the negotiator.

I would like to remind this government that although governments do come and go, it does have some responsibility since in 1992, the former prime minister did make a verbal commitment. However, since a new government is in office, this commitment needs to be reaffirmed and confirmed, since we are dealing with relatively tight deadlines.

Calgary received $240 million in financing guarantees. I cannot understand why the federal government is so reluctant to commit to a similar amount when a study has shown that this project would generate in the neighbourhood of $200 million in terms of direct and indirect jobs, the GST and so on. Why is the government taking so long to decide when it could earn these

kinds of revenues? Quebec is asking for equal consideration for the 2002 Games, that is $240 million in financing guarantees, without any indexation.

This financial guarantee is extremely important to the residents of the Quebec City region in terms of helping them prepare and present their bid for the Olympic Games. They need some assurance that federal assistance will be forthcoming. A great many concerns are being expressed at the local level. Without assurances of the usual government assistance, people are getting worried.

I hope that I will receive a clearer answer today than I did last time.

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, whom I know well since he is chairman of the human resources committee, of which I am a member, today criticizes the role of the Official Opposition and links it to sovereignty. Before doing that, however, he talked about a few things, and I would like to refresh his memory on certain facts. He said that Quebec was spared by the Budget in terms of cuts.

I would like to ask him, after the many demonstrations made not only by the Official Opposition, but the Government of Quebec as well, if he really believes that the federal government spared Quebec when it closed the Collège militaire royal in Saint-Jean, the only francophone military college.

I will not restart the debate held earlier, but I am still anxiously waiting for the government to take action in the MIL Davie case. There was no response, as we said a little earlier. I do not want to restart the debate, but we had no answer whatever on this subject.

As for the helicopters, the government speedily cancelled the contracts that the Conservatives had made. However, unlike Bill C-22 on Toronto's Pearson Airport, which we are now discussing, there was no compensation.

Formerly, when the federal government withdrew from certain projects, it created a regional development fund, as in the case of Laprade. But in this case, there was nothing of the sort. Yet, the jobs on the line were very high-tech ones.

In this respect, you know, the member should share his concerns with us because his region is having problems with unemployment and fishing. He should himself be worried about the situation. I understand that this afternoon, he is on the other side, he is a member of the government, he does not dare to express his concerns. According to what I heard, I do not think a lot of progress was made in his province, Nova Scotia, since the Liberal Party's election, because unemployment is still very high. Quebecers are preoccupied because they lost 11,000 hich-tech jobs. It is up to the government to respond.

We, in the opposition, proposed this debate today because we feel that the conversion from military to civilian use is extremely important. Maybe it is not the most important issue, but it is one of the most important. Therefore, instead of accusing us of debating on the Constitution, the member should stick to today's issue, which is the problem of defence industry conversion.

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member, whom I know well given that he chairs the parliamentary committee on Human Resources, of which I am a member myself, for his question. What is the cause of my concern? Simply the facts. We heard that a business plan was tabled recently. I was not only concerned, I was also disappointed to hear the Minister of Transport mention just recently that he was waiting for a business plan. He even said so in a letter to the City of Lévis, the City Council of Lévis.

Last August, a few weeks before the election was called, MIL Davie officials presented this famous business plan to the present chief of staff of the present Prime Minister, who was a candidate in Quebec City, and to all the Liberal candidates in the Quebec City region. Considering that the Prime Minister's chief of staff already knew about this business plan then, one cannot come and claim eight or ten months later never having heard of this plan.

Like many other people of Lévis who took part in the election campaign and all the workers, I can remember the Prime Minister visiting Lévis days before the election and saying he agreed with the business plan. The fact of the matter is that this plan he had been shown minutes earlier provided for two transition contracts, that is to say the Magdalen Islands ferry and the smart ship, as well as for some infrastructure assistance. All this has been known since last August.

Now, the government was elected a few months ago. It is understandable that it would take until January to settle in, but I will remind the hon. member that, when I rose in my place on January 18 to inquired about the ferry to the minister, his answer was: "Soon". Later we learned that for him, "soon" means two months. If I am not mistaken, two months from January 18, that would bring us to March 18. We are now in May. Two months may not seem like a very long time, but for workers loosing their jobs a hundred at a time every week-there were 3,000 of them this time last year, but at this rate there may soon be only 400 or 500 of them remaining; that is 2,500 jobs lost, and it will be 2,800 by the time December comes around-to hear the government answer it is looking into the matter is becoming unacceptable. Hundreds of workers are waiting for an answer.

That kind of situation worries me. That is the reason why I wanted, as the member for Lévis, to take part in this debate on the conversion of military industries to civilian production. I rise not only for my own riding, but also because for the whole Quebec City region the MIL Davie shipyard accounts for a total payroll of $150 million. If you count all indirect jobs created by sub-contracting, it represents for the 10 ridings of the Quebec City region an economic activity of $600 million.

As you know, that type of venture yields secondary benefits. Therefore it is extremely important. Besides, that issue has been recognized by the Conseil du patronat and by all economic organizations of Quebec as a top priority. The present Liberal government knew that when they were in opposition and during the election campaign. And they still know it today. We are now in the month of May 1994 and no answer has come yet.

Meanwhile, the rumour has it that the contract might be given by tender and that there would be other shipyards, in the region of the hon. member by the way. And there is the smart ship-a concept that belongs to and was developed by the MIL Davie. At the beginning, that original idea was presented in a business plan in private but today it is becoming more and more public. But as months go by nothing happens.

I am not the only one to be worried. The Minister of Industry and Commerce of Quebec, Mr. Tremblay-I guess I can call him by his title since he is not here-is also getting impatient. A few weeks ago, a coalition of all federal and provincial political parties, including the Quebec City members of the federal Liberal Party, supported the position of the MIL Davie. Despite that, there was no answer. This situation is indecent.

I am once more urging the government-and it may be the last time-to respond at last and to stop penalizing the region of Quebec City because it has not voted for the Liberal Party. If that is the reason, it is dangerous. I have warned the government that there will soon be, in a few weeks, in a few months, a provincial election that could have major consequences for the future of this country.

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, as the member for Lévis, I am pleased to participate in this special debate, which results from an Official Opposition motion, on the conversion of defence industries to civilian production.

In my riding, there is an extremely important company which is in jeopardy because of the existing situation. I am referring to the MIL Davie shipyard. In fact, until just a few years ago, this company was the largest shipyard in Canada.

The conversion of defence industries is undoubtedly an important issue for Quebec. As you know, military equipment industries have been experiencing difficulties since the end of the Cold War. It is estimated that, since 1987, the demand on the international market has dropped by close to ten per cent. According to international experts, this drop may very soon reach 25 per cent. In Quebec, since that same year, 11,000 of the 57,000 jobs in that sector have already disappeared.

If there is a company which illustrates the urgent need to convert military industries, it is the MIL Davie shipyard. One year ago, the company developed a business plan to switch from military to civilian production. This plan is not only designed to give back to MIL Davie its status of best shipyard in Canada, but also to make it a leader at the international level. The plan includes two transitional contracts. One concerns the construction of a ferry for the Magdalen Islands, for which there is a demonstrated need, while the other provides for the construction of a multi-purpose strategic ship for peacekeeping missions and environmental interventions, called "smart ship".

Unfortunately, the shipyard and the thousands of related jobs are in jeopardy because of this government's apathy. MIL Davie urgently needs to convert to civilian production, since this shipyard is among those Quebec industries which rely the most on military contracts.

Let me give you some interesting data compiled by the Groupe de recherche de l'industrie militaire et de reconversion, which is affiliated to the Université du Québec à Montréal. Until now, 91 per cent of MIL Davie's production has been related to military equipment contracts. MIL Davie is also in fourth place among the 16 companies identified by the UQAM group, after Oerlikon, which has so far been dependent on the military market for 100 per cent of its production, as well as Paramax and SNC Technologies, which depend on that market for 95 per cent of their production. Yet, the Liberal government only offers lame excuses to justify the delaying of its decision on the transitional contracts for the Magdalen Islands ferry and the "smart ship".

The latest of these excuses is the one provided by the Minister of Transport who, in early March, demanded a copy of MIL Davie's business plan before making a decision concerning the two contracts. But, as I said earlier, this business plan has been available for a year already.

Obviously, before making such a decision, the government must ensure that there is a real need for these ships. However, that need has been demonstrated in both cases.

Let us first look at the Magdalen Islands ferry. The useful life of the ferry which has been in use for over 28 years, the Lucy Maud Montgomery , will end in less than two years. After that, the ship will not be safe enough to get its certificate of seaworthiness, which is required by the federal government.

The Magdalen Islanders also consider that the Lucy Maud Montgomery is bad for business in their area, because the ship no longer meets the needs of the people. For example, the tweendeck is not high enough to accommodate some types of trailers and trucks.

On February 11, the mayors of the Magdalen Islands communities toured MIL Davie main dockyard, the only world-class dockyard in Quebec for now. All of them unanimously recognized the need to replace the Lucy Maud Montgomery . On February 22, these same mayors and representatives of the Coopérative de transport maritime et aérien, the company operating the ferry service, reached a consensus and all agreed that a new ferry was needed.

I am going over all of this because there seems to be some confusion created by the hon. member for Bonaventure, among others, about the possibility of replacing the ferry by a used ship. In January, and more specifically on January 18, the day after the opening of this session, the minister of Transport stated, in answer to questions put by our colleague, the hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans and myself, that, where the Magdalen Islands ferry was concerned, an announcement would be made soon. Following pressures made by stakeholders, we were told that when the minister said soon, he really meant a couple of months. That was on January 18.

The only other time I heard the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine comment on this very important issue for his constituents was in an article run by the local newspaper, Le Radar . The hon. member had nothing else to say but complain that the whole issue of the ferry service was his responsibility, not the responsibility of the Bloc Quebecois.

To tell the truth, he must have been outraged by one of the headlines in a previous issue of Le Radar , where it was said that never before had the Magdalen Islands been talked about so much since the arrival of the Bloc Quebecois in Ottawa. If I had been the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine I would have felt piqued as well.

Nevertheless, March and April have come and gone. We are still waiting for an answer while the workers are being laid off by the hundreds and while Magdalen Islanders are wondering what their member and their government are doing.

If a decision is made shortly, the new ferry could be delivered in time, that is when the Lucy Maud Montgomery has to be replaced. I will take 9 to 10 months to prepare the final drawings. Then, construction will take 12 months and sea trials another month. The Liberal government has dragged its feet long enough, it must act now.

Let us now talk about the smart ship, a multi-purpose supply and general transport ship. The Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of Environment need that type of ship, the former for peacekeeping or humanitarian aid operations, the latter to intervene in case of a major spill. This project is by far the most important for the future of MIL Davie, because it would allow the development of a new organizational culture and new modes of production.

The concept was developed by the MIL Davie shipyards of Lévis. Plans, modelling and prototype development are done under the direction of an associated company, MIL Engineering System.

The construction of this type of ship would fit into the review of the Canadian defence policy, a review made necessary by the end of the cold war and the increase in the number of peacekeeping or humanitarian operations because of local conflicts.

The new international environment, a result of the end of the cold war, might very well increase the risk of such conflicts and Canadian Armed Forces have developed a sought after know-how in the area of peacekeeping. As matter of fact, the Canada 21 Council gave another boost to the smart ship project on March 16. This private council has been commissioned to review the Canadian defence policy in the new context of international relations. Its membership includes former politicians of various affiliations, some fairly well known like Donald MacDonald and Gérard Pelletier, both former Liberal ministers; former military officers like Admiral Robert H. Falls; and business people and economists of renown.

The Canada 21 Council recommends that the Canadian government cancel the planned purchase of three submarines and acquire instead three multi-purpose supply ships, or smart ships, to provide operational support to peacekeeping missions. These three ships proposed by the council would replace the AOR combat support ships, such as the Protecteur , which are nearing the end of their operational lives, and which are not multi-purpose and cannot transport vehicles nor launch small landing crafts or amphibious vehicles in great numbers. As a matter of fact, they are only used to supply navy ships at sea.

Moreover, the smart ship can be used for a whole range of logistic operations. It can be used as an aircraft-carrier and hold up to 24 transport helicopters and 600 troops for airborne operations. Such a capacity could be a real asset if, for example, Canadians or citizens of allied countries had to be evacuated on a moment's notice, as in Rwanda, for example.

At the present time, to transport the equipment of Canadian troops, we have to charter private ships, mainly foreign. And then it takes several weeks before our soldiers receive their heavy equipment and their combat vehicles. One smart ship could transport one battalion group with its equipment, armoured vehicles, tanks and artillery. It would have been very useful for our mission in the former Yugoslavia.

In the event of a natural disaster, the smart ship can be quickly transformed to carry a whole range of vehicles such as trucks and ambulances, building materials and equipment, water tanks, fuel tanks and bridgelayers.

Close to 200 containers holding food, clothing, tents and other supplies can be stored on the main deck. This feature would have been appreciated especially in Somalia and in Florida, after hurricane Andrew.

Moreover this ship can carry chemical dispersants, and devices to contain and absorb spills. It can accommodate a clean-up team of 600 and be used as a command, control and communications ship.

Recently, a director of MIL Davie told me that the Department of National Defence has enough information available to it this spring to convey its decision right away to government officials. A favourable decision would allow MIL Engineering System to proceed to build a model of the ship at a cost of only $6.5 million.

Time is of the essence here. It is highly probable that most of MIL Davie's competitors are now familiar with the smart ship concept. Rumours are swirling that other shipyards have taken up the idea and intend to have their own engineers take a look at the concept.

If we delay too long, someone will steal our idea, possibly foreign competitors who already possess the necessary technology to apply the concept developed by MIL Davie.

The smart ship project is the most important transitional contract, one which would allow MIL Davie to proceed with conversion. By building the smart ship, MIL Davie hopes to develop new production modes and to change the way shipyards in Canada operate.

The challenge ahead is a formidable one. The company hopes to be able to build this ship in 390,000 hours, instead of the normal 800,000 hours. The Danes have accomplished this feat and if a strategic agreement can be reached with them, MIL Davie could rely on help from a shipyard in Denmark, which currently ranks third in the world in this field.

MIL Davie would need new, more powerful cranes and its staff would have to be trained in computer-assisted design and production techniques and in the use of new procedures such as plasma welding.

The Quebec Minister of Industry and Trade has expressed his concern about the federal government's commitment to defence industry conversion and with good reason. However, the Quebec government is not alone in supporting conversion. The Conseil du patronat du Québec , not known as an advocate of sovereignty, also supports this process.

I would like to call to mind the resolution passed by Rendez-vous économique 1993 , an economic summit meeting organized by the Conseil du patronat in Montreal. This resolution called on the federal government to extend adequate financial support for conversion to all industries that depend on military contracts. This financial support would continue for however long it took to complete the adaptation, conversion and diversification process.

In recommendation 1B, the Conseil du patronat du Québec also called on the federal government to award a $6.5 million design contract and three-year $200 million construction contract for the smart ship prototype. This would also be the prototype for a series of similar ships for the international market, a highly promising and expanding market.

With the expertise acquired in building the smart ship, MIL Davie wants to enter the international market for commercial ships between 40,000 and 70,000 tons. It is estimated that half the current fleet of oil tankers and bulk carriers should be scrapped and replaced in the next few years. Moreover, the rise in global demand due to the increase in international trade is estimated at 2.5 per cent until 2005.

Under these conditions, average demand should grow by 30 per cent from an average of 780 ships per year in the last ten years to an annual average of 1,025 ships until 2005, with peaks of 1,500 ships weighing over 2,000 tons. Since the average ship lasts 23 years and almost half the fleet is 15 years old or more, large orders are to be expected.

When they were in opposition, some influential members of this government's Cabinet, like the current Minister of Human Resources Development who was the critic on External Affairs, clearly stated that the Defence Industry Productivity Program had to be redesigned for the conversion of defence industries.

In a March 26, 1993 press release from the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, the current Minister of Human Resources Development noted: "Canada has a golden opportunity to stake out new market niches for the Canadian defence industry in peacekeeping and environmental technologies". We can only conclude that the Liberal government is suffering from amnesia today.

On April 19, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Defence whether the contract for building the smart ship would soon be awarded to MIL Davie. He told me it would not happen before 1995. This answer shows this government's lack of concern for the tens of thousands of defence workers whose jobs are threatened. At MIL Davie alone, excluding companies like CAE, Canadian Marconi, Oerlikon, Paramax and many others, nearly 2,800 jobs would be lost. The shipyard would probably have to close for an indeterminate period of time or even permanently. Another 8,000 indirect jobs would vanish in the Quebec City region. So it is very important.

While I have a few minutes left, so you will not feel that MIL Davie and Quebec complain or demand too much, I will quote some figures concerning contracts awarded since 1986 to various shipyards in Canada. The ferry Smallwood , $130 million to MIL Davie; destroyer modernization, $286 million to MIL Davie but $1.2 billion to Toronto-based Linton; frigate construction, $400 million to MIL Davie but $6.2 billion to Saint John Shipbuilding; defence contract adjustments, only $263 million to MIL Davie; the Pictou ferry, $50 million to the Pictou shipyard; minesweepers, $450 million to Fenco Halifax.

In conclusion, I would like to come back to the press release of March 26. Just before, I would like to say that I did not complete the list, but in all, $13 billion was invested in the marine sector, of which the MIL Davie shipyard got only $1.094 billion, or about one thirteenth.

I come back to the press release in which the Leader of the Opposition, who is now the Prime Minister, said this: "Canadians deserve a government that can lead the way, a government that brings new ideas and new strategies, a government that helps them adjust to change. Our defence conversion policy is an example of how a Liberal government would meet the needs of Canadians in years to come".

I have only this to say to this government in conclusion: "Prove to the workers of MIL Davie and the employees of the 649 other defence companies in Quebec that what you said, Mr. Prime Minister, when you were in opposition was not just empty words".

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take advantage of the debate on Bill C-22 to show how the Quebec City airport has been unfairly treated by the federal government up until now, to the point that it is slowing down the development of Metropolitan Quebec City.

What is striking in this bill is the double standard applied by the Liberal government when dealing with the airports in Toronto and Quebec City. In the case of Quebec City, the Liberal government is dragging its feet. But in Toronto, it uses a steam-roller approach, overlooking a lot of things, probably under the pressure of lobbyists.

As a matter of fact, I am starting to understand what some Liberal candidates in the Quebec City area meant, during the last election campaign, when they mentioned the corridors of power. They probably meant the corridors used by lobbyists. But do people really want to leave the task of influencing the government's actions to the lobbyists? Or would they rather have their elected members make representations to the government? I believe the latter.

Otherwise, Quebec should probably consider speeding up the HST project or upgrading the Quebec City airport, to shorten delays, since lobbyists for Quebec City appear to be less powerful than those for the Toronto airport.

For some time now, the federal government has known that the Quebec City airport infrastructure is totally inadequate to meet the needs of an area where the capital city of all Quebecers is located. On June 23, 1993, on the eve of Quebec's national holiday, representatives of the federal Conservative government held a big ceremony during which they unveiled a new sign and announced that Jean Lesage airport in Quebec City would henceforth enjoy the status of an international airport. Without wanting to minimize the promotional impact of this new status, plans to expand Jean Lesage airport are still collecting dust on the responsible minister's desk.

A simple sign identifying the airport in Quebec City as an international facility will not resolve the bottlenecks that occur. The international flight passenger waiting area is so small that overcrowding occurs on a regular basis, particularly when several international chartered flights carrying hundreds of passengers arrive at the same time. To avoid total chaos,

passengers on the last incoming flight must all too often wait to disembark.

A circus atmosphere prevails when hundreds of passengers converge on the sole luggage conveyors in the area reserved for international flights and on the customs area. How can we hope to attract major international carriers when a short stopover in Quebec City on a Paris-Los Angeles flight can mean a delay of several hours for passengers who must patiently wait until those wishing to disembark can do so and the flight can resume?

Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that the many past attempts by airline companies to establish international links to Quebec City have been quickly abandoned.

Another good reason for expanding the airport is Quebec City's bid for the Winter Olympic Games in the year 2002. According to the Association des gens de l'air du Québec, Jean Lesage airport is too small to handle the traffic that would be generated by the Olympic Games in eight years' time.

The association is of the opinion that, because of its bush-league airport, foreign travellers will be left with the impression that Quebec City is, and I quote, "a banana republic". In fact, in our region, people can hardly believe how little was done to fix the airport in recent years.

Again, the president of the air transportation workers union was quoted in a Quebec City daily newspaper as saying: "The main runway was widened so 747s could land. It is all very well but runway lights were not even moved, so if that heavy aircraft veers slightly off course, it will hit the lights and the necessary repairs will slow everything down".

A brief that the air transportation workers union sent to the people responsible for the Quebec City airport development plan and to Corporation Québec 2002 lists four major deficiencies that need to be addressed quickly. First, a runway less than 4,000-feet long running parallel to the main runway would separate heavy aircraft from lighter aircraft for better safety and efficiency.

Second, a taxiway network should be developed to allow aircraft to quickly leave or enter the main runway, thus reducing waiting periods. Third, access ramps must be widened as they are getting more and more congested. Passengers must walk long distances outside, an embarrassing and sometimes dangerous situation, especially in winter.

Fourth, customs personnel must be increased. The lack of customs officers sometimes creates long and tiring line-ups at peak times for international passengers.

It is worth pointing out that these recommendations were tabled on December 8, 1992. We are still waiting for a concrete response from federal officials, something other than simply designating as international an airport with such a status but without the necessary facilities. Whatever we do, we must not make the mistake of minimizing the importance of an adequate airport for the 2002 Olympic Games.

Salt Lake City will certainly be Quebec City's fiercest rival. It even has a truly international airport with all the amenities likely to sway the people who will pick the winning city among the applicants.

The applicant's guide to hosting the 19th Winter Olympic Games in 2002, issued by the International Olympic Committee, says under "transportation" that, as previous experience shows, one of the keys to successful Games is an efficient transportation system. This guide recommends that applicant cities focus on three key areas, namely the transportation of people, equipment and luggage, as well as customs clearance. This is a very good reason to increase the number of customs officers and put in new baggage conveyors at the Quebec City airport.

Of course, the decision to expand the airport should not be based only on the possibility of hosting the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. We must consider above all the needs of the Quebec City region, before and after the Games. The figures quoted in this House on Wednesday by my colleague from Louis-Hébert demonstrate the need for expansion due to the dramatic increase in transborder and international flights at the Quebec City airport between 1988 and 1992.

According to Transport Canada's own figures, as quoted by the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, transborder flights have increased by 179 per cent in Quebec City. In comparison, they went up 12.5 per cent in Halifax, 13 per cent in Winnipeg and 15 per cent in Calgary.

I can hear from here the government side argue that investments were made to upgrade the runway to accommodate jumbo jets like the Boeing 747. It was a very minor reconstruction project, a $7.5 million project, while the $33.5 million five-year capital plan announced in September of 1990 called for the construction of a new control tower, among other things.

Now what has come of that plan? I fear that, as usual, this government will say it is under consideration, the classic excuse to avoid admitting that, again, nothing was done.

The fact of the matter is that millions of dollars were spent to reconstruct the runway, just to prevent grass clippings blown away by the 747s' jet engines from blowing back on the runway. That is the kind of upgrade the Quebec airport has undergone!

But the business community in the Quebec City region have been calling attention to the deficiencies of our airport for a great many years.

Our region's development depends for a large part on technological enterprises open on the world and on tourism. Quebec has acquired international stature after it was declared-the only city in Canada, by the way-World Heritage City by UNESCO. Its cultural life and festivals make it a choice destination for tourists from around the world. However, our development is being compromised because, once again, a central government out of touch with local needs is dragging its feet.

[12Th Regiment Of Valcartier, April 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a group of soldiers, most of them from the 12e Régiment blindé de Valcartier, arrived in Quebec City yesterday, on their way back from several months of peacekeeping duty in the former Yugoslavia. The remaining troops from the 12th Regiment are due to arrive in a few days.

On behalf of all the Bloc Quebecois members, I would like to pay tribute to these Quebec and Canadian soldiers for the dedication and sense of duty they have shown in the accomplishment of their task, during their long and difficult stay in the former Yugoslavia. I believe that several of these soldiers deserve that their acts of bravery be officially recognized.

The UN peacekeeping mission in that country is not over, and the 12th Regiment is being replaced by troops from Calgary. We wish them all the best.

[Prescription Drugs, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on April 13, I asked a question to the Minister of Human Resources Development concerning the new apprenticeship program for young people which, as you know, is now called "Young Apprentices". Unfortunately, my question was not answered satisfactorily.

What I was asking the minister was to commit himself to give Quebec its fair share of the program funds so that it could invest them according to its own needs and priorities.

Instead of answering my question, the Minister of Human Resources Development criticized some figures that I had not even mentioned in terms of vocational training. Vocational training is a provincial responsibility. The next day representatives from both the Parti Quebecois and the Liberal Party of Quebec in the National Assembly unanimously passed a motion asking the federal government to withdraw from vocational training.

Quebec was not the only one to make this request to the minister. At least three other provinces also expressed their reservations to the minister, which seemingly caused the cancellation of the federal-provincial conference that was expected for the next Monday.

Since then, the minister has continued to go forward unilaterally with this "Young Apprentices" Program, despite the fact that vocational training is, and I repeat it, the exclusive responsibility of the provinces.

Using federal spending power, with about 24 per cent of tax revenues coming from Quebec, the Minister of Human Resources Development admitted yesterday before a parliamentary committee that he used funds formerly allocated to community agencies to partly finance his new programs. For the benefit of Quebecers, I may point out that these programs are commonly referred to as direct employment programs.

I think it is highly improper to divert funds allocated to agencies that focus on local community development, in order to finance a new intrusion into a field of provincial jurisdiction. Hundreds of community agencies are now waiting for a reply from the Minister of Human Resources Development.

They talk about new models and new programs but never about new budget envelopes. They just recycle and fiddle with the existing envelopes for community agencies.

Does the minister really think he can fool us? When will the federal government finally understand that it is now time to reduce duplication, get rid of bureaucratic fat, encourage consultation on program financing and respect provincial jurisdictions such as education and job training?

Will the minister finally understand that we can save more than $300 million if he stops the duplication in the field of job training and if he gives the Government of Quebec the money he intends to spend in this area?

Finally, will the minister show some common sense and abide by the unanimous resolution of the Quebec National Assembly on job training and the various programs for young people recently announced by the minister?