Antoine Dubé

[National Sport Act, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since I was prepared to speak to the motion dealing with hockey, I will speak only about hockey, which does not mean that I oppose the amendment.

I would first like to congratulate the hon. member for Kamloops for his determination in wanting to have hockey recognized as the national sport since, according to our research, this is at least his third attempt to do so. Moreover, I learned from my own research that this is at least the tenth time that someone in this House tried to have hockey recognized as the national sport.

Let me say straightaway that we are in favour of recognizing hockey as the national sport, but for another reason than the one raised by the hon. member for Kamloops. The hon. member for Kamloops said that one of the reasons why he presented this bill is that it may contribute to national unity.

I do not intend to embark on a partisan debate today, because the reason for a national sport is to foster harmony, but I would like to indicate to the hon. member for Kamloops that our perspective may be different from his. Nothing prevents two countries from sharing the same national sport. Quebecers also love hockey. We will have to wait for a referendum, but Quebec will likely be a sovereign state in a couple of years, and it will want to keep excellent relations with English-speaking Canada. Sports foster good relations. For reasons that have nothing to do with those of the hon. member for Kamloops, we agree that hockey should become a national sport.

If there is a sport that can arouse interest here, that sport is hockey. Playoffs under way in the National Hockey League are on the mind of many people. The first item on the Téléjournal on April 20 was the health problems of the Canadiens' goalie Patrick Roy, and not the war in Bosnia or bloodshed in Rwanda.

Many people may condemn that editorial choice, but it shows how important hockey is for Canadians and Quebecers.

The method most frequently used by countries to choose a national sport is to find one which was created in that country. This is the case for hockey which is a combination of four other sports, three coming from abroad and one taken from the Indians. People probably do not know it, but hockey is a combination of bandy, originally from England, shinty, originally from Scotland, hurley, originally from Ireland, and, of course, lacrosse, a native Indian sport.

The books written on hockey do not say when and where the first real game was played. As the member for Kamloops and the parliamentary secretary said, many have their own ideas about its history. Many regions still claim, without documented proof, to be the site of the first game. However, we know that the first publicized hockey game was played in 1875 at McGill University in Montreal and that the first rules were published in The Gazette on February 27, 1877. All this proves one thing: hockey was truly invented in Canada.

It is also very important to look at the number of people who practice a sport to determine its popularity. Nowadays in Canada more than 650,000 men and women participate in this sport. Even if hockey is played mostly by men, more and more women play as well. Our women's national team has just won its third world championship in a row. This team's goalie is Manon Rhéaume, the first woman ever to play professional hockey.

Who has not played hockey in the street or on a frozen lake? So, when you say 650,000 players, these are players registered with the Canadian Hockey Association. In reality, there are countless players. Just about everybody has played hockey, at one time or another, more often in the street than on an rink with boards around it. The fans who closely monitor the performance of their favourite teams number in the millions. Names such as Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Gordie Howe, Maurice Richard, Bobby Hull, Jean Béliveau, and Bobby Orr are now legendary. They are or will be inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame, in Toronto, where most of the inductees were born in Canada or in Quebec.

When we think about hockey, we think about the National Hockey League and the Stanley Cup, one of the most prestigious trophies in professional sport. It was created in 1893 by Lord Stanley, a great sports fan who was also the sixth Governor General in Canadian history. The original trophy was only a salad bowl for which Lord Stanley had paid less than $50. But over the years, several layers have been added to it; the names of the winning team members are engraved on it. In spite of its relative lack of value, the trophy is highly coveted.

Hockey has become the national pride of Canada and Quebec; it reached its pinnacle in 1972 during the series of the century which pitted Canada against the Soviet Union.

In Quebec, there is a hockey team which greatly contributed to enhance French Canadian pride-that is what we were called in those days-the Montreal Canadiens, created in 1909. With 24 Stanley Cups, they are the most important dynasty in professional sport in North America. In the twenties and thirties, this team was one of the first to recruit French-speaking players. Lightning-fast and aggressive, they were nicknamed the Flying Frenchmen. There was Aurèle Joliat, Armand Mondou, and Sylvio Mantha, to name but a few. They played in the Montreal Forum, the legendary building at the corner of Sainte-Catherine and Atwater.

It was during the forties and the fifties that they became truly legendary, especially because of Maurice Richard.

He was the first player to score 50 goals in one season in the NHL; he led the Montreal Canadiens to many Stanley Cups, including five in a row between 1956 and 1960. That man was a powerful symbol for Quebecers. The suspension which he got in 1955, depriving the Canadiens from the Stanley Cup, provoked a real riot in the Montreal Forum.

The Canadiens benefitted from an almost monopoly of recruitment in Quebec for many years. That allowed them to acquire players such as Phil Goyette, Bernard Geoffrion and Jacques Plante.

The Canadiens have always had many French-speaking stars on their team over the years. I will name some others: Jean Béliveau, Jacques Laperrière, Henri Richard, Guy Lafleur, Jacques Lemaire, Guy Lapointe, Patrick Roy, Guy Charbonneau and many more. Of course, there were also English players who contributed: Howie Morenz, Ken Dryden, Toe Blake, Doug Harvey, Larry Robinson and many others. Naturally, some French-speaking players also won fame with other teams: Jean

Ratelle with the New York Rangers, Mario Lemieux with Pittsburgh, Marcel Dionne and many others.

This was to demonstrate that Quebecers have been well represented in the sport that is called hockey. It was one of their first successes. Coming from the province of Quebec, I would not forgive myself if I did not mention the Quebec Nordiques who, due to the dramatic increase in salaries, may have to leave Quebec City, as other players from other teams may have to leave cities such as Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg and various small towns.

It is fine to adopt today an act recognizing hockey as the national sport. But I believe that one should also consider to take rather quickly some measures which would keep teams such as the ones I just mentioned in Canada and in Quebec. It is very important.

The last point I want to make is that, to preserve this sport, I feel it is important to take measures to fight against violence in hockey, a factor which may very well discredit that sport. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish together with my colleagues to congratulate once again the member from Kamloops for introducing this bill.

[Income Tax Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on April 14 last, I put a question to the Minister of Human Resources Development concerning his youth action plan.

Instead of answering my question about the jurisdictional conflicts arising from his action plan, the Minister of Human Resources Development merely criticized the fact that I was denouncing his action plan. This is rather odd, since I thought it

was the duty of an opposition member to criticize the government's actions and that this was not the least bit unusual. This is what I was told. Yet, there was the minister criticizing me.

I felt an even greater duty to criticize the plan since it represented another intrusion into an area of provincial jurisdiction, namely education. Let me show you what I mean.

First, let me read the title of the action plan. I have no problem with the first part of the title, "Youth Employment". This is, admittedly, an area of shared jurisdiction.

The second part of the title reads as follows: "And Learning Strategy". Can this title make it any clearer that education is involved? May I remind hon. members that education is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Yet, there was the Minister of Human Resources Development announcing on April 15 last a strategy which is one more example of federal intrusion in the field of education.

Let us begin by examining the first measure, Youth Service Canada. The first stream identified as a priority area for projects is community development and learning, to quote the action plan, "in the area of education". No effort whatsoever is made to hide the fact.

A second Youth Service Canada component which pertains to education is the education voucher. Following a period of service lasting nine months, participants receive a bonus of $2,000 in the form of an education voucher.

The second measure is the Youth Internship Program. This is a new title designed to avoid any reference to apprenticeship programs. We now speak of youth interns. What does the action plan have to say about youth interns? In the second paragraph, it says that "the federal government is acting to implement new entry level training models". Further on, on page 6, third paragraph: "The standardization of existing training plans will ensure that programs are based on common standards and thus have applicability across Canada."

I will skim over the Summer Employment Program which poses no problems as far as jurisdiction goes, as well as the increases in student loans, although I would like to mention here that among students, notably those in Quebec, 16 per cent are unable to repay their student loans and are forced to seek protection under the bankruptcy legislation. And what is the minister doing? Well, he is increasing the level of indebtedness of students.

On page 11 under Learning Initiatives, mention is made of setting national training goals, of updating existing training measurement tools, of putting multimedia resources and computers in place in schools, of facilitating the dissemination of information on key learning issues and, finally, of maintaining the stay in school program. All of these are education-related initiatives.

Following the unveiling of this program, three provinces decided not to attend the federal-provincial meeting scheduled for the following Monday. That very same day, the Liberal Party and the Parti Quebecois joined forces in the Quebec National Assembly to unanimously pass a motion calling upon the federal government not only to refrain from any further intrusion in, but also to withdraw from the field of manpower training.

Finally, last Friday, the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse , a paragovernmental agency in Quebec, held a press conference to denounce as well federal intrusion in the area of manpower training. I would have liked to put my question to the minister, but I see that his parliamentary secretary is not present. I hope that someone is on hand to speak on his behalf. Normally, we should get an answer to our question.

When will the federal government withdraw from this field-

[2002 Olympic Games, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Deputy Prime Minister or the parliamentary secretary. The deadline for the bid is getting very close. Québec 2002 must have an answer from the federal government in the next few weeks, because the deadline is August 18.

Could she tell us whether an answer will be given and a negotiator appointed? Will the negotiations be modelled on what was done for Calgary?

[2002 Olympic Games, April 22nd, 1994]

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

We know that Corporation Québec 2002 needs help from the federal government to complete its presentation to the International Olympic Committee in order to be a candidate for hosting the Games. The corporation has been asking for a long time that a representative of the government be appointed in order to initiate trilateral negotiations on the $240 million financing guarantees that are required, and were given to Calgary in the past.

The deadlines have been moved forward by the IOC, and rather than urging organizers of Québec 2002 to be patient, like the Minister of Canadian Heritage is doing, could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the government intends to give a speedy answer to Québec 2002?

[Controlled Drugs And Substances Act, April 19th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, on March 18, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister if she could promise on behalf of the government to implement the recommendation of Canada 21 Council, a committee charged with reviewing Canada's defence policy that recommends building in Canada three support ships for humanitarian aid and peacekeeping. I also

asked the Deputy Prime Minister if she could promise to give the MIL Davie shipyards the mandate to develop the "smart" ship, which could effectively support Canada's peacekeeping efforts.

Unfortunately for the thousands of MIL Davie workers threatened with job loss who need a little hope, we only had a vague answer like "we are looking into it". That is tragic, but it is always the same answer with this government. We ask questions, but they go unanswered. When we get answers, for example in the case of the Magdalen Islands ferry, we are promised an answer in two months, but the time goes by and still no answer. I hope that in the "smart" ship case, the government will be diligent for once.

You should know that the Canadian navy's AOR-type supply and logistical support ships are coming to the end of their life. Moreover, these three ships are not equipped for humanitarian support and peace missions. For example, Canada must now rent foreign ships to transport the vehicles, equipment and supplies needed to support our troops overseas. It usually takes several weeks before these ships are available to begin to take on the materiel our soldiers need.

The MIL Davie shipyard already has a solution for this problem with its project for a versatile strategic transport and supply ship, known as the "smart" ship. For peacekeeping operations, a single "smart" ship can carry a mechanized battalion group including 70 armored troop carriers, 21 tanks, 96 trucks, 8 M-109 armored self-propelled howitzers, 50 jeeps and 50 trailers, together with 300 tonnes of munitions and the fuel required for the vehicles.

In another configuration, a single "smart" ship can provide the support needed for airborne operations with 600 infantry soldiers and 24 transport helicopters that can be used for refugee evacuation in particular. With a different configuration, the "smart" ship can transport everything required to operate an air base for 24 CF-18s, which would have been very useful for our forces during the gulf war, for example.

In the event of a natural disaster, the "smart" ship can be quickly modified to transport a range of vehicles such as ambulances, trucks, materials, construction equipment, water tanks, fuel and bridge-building equipment. Up to 192 containers can fit on the main deck and be loaded with food, clothing, tents and other supplies. These ships would have been very useful in Somalia or when Hurricane Andrew hit Florida a few years ago.

In case of a spill at sea, the "smart" ship can carry small clean-up boats to do the job. It can also carry clean-up equipment such as chemical dispersants and material to contain and absorb the spill. Its huge storage tanks can also be used to hold the recovered hydrocarbons. It can accommodate a 600-person clean-up crew and be used as a command, control and communication ship.

I hope that this time, faced with these facts, the federal government will stop dragging its feet when we propose a project that meets the new realities of today's world. Above all, do not give us answers like the one from the Minister of Transport in a letter sent a few weeks ago to the City of Lévis, talking about a business plan that had already been filed a year ago.

So we hope that the person representing the minister today will be able to give us a clearer and more definite answer.

[Action Plan For Young People, April 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, normally the Minister of Human Resources Development should have taken a lesson in humility from the National Assembly, yesterday, but that does not seem to have been the case. Is the minister prepared to postpone the implementation of his apprenticeship plan until such time as he has secured the co-operation of the provinces and of Quebec?

[Action Plan For Young People, April 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. The minister has just informed us today that he will be holding a press conference to announce, with great pomp I imagine, his apprenticeship plan for Canadian youth.

But this plan implies an obvious infringement on the provinces' jurisdiction over education. One simple question: Did the minister make a point, before announcing this plan, of securing the support of the Quebec government?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 15th, 1994]

So, this concerns every province. For instance, and members from Newfoundland will surely be interested by this, 1,635 people in that province will be affected by the increase in the entrance requirement and 1,370 will be affected by the reduction in the maximum benefit period.

Prince Edward Island is also hit hard. And so is New Brunswick, with particularly striking effects. In that province, 1,155 people will be affected by the first measure and 1,335 by the second. In the case of Quebec, 4,880 people will be affected by the reduction in the maximum benefit period.

You can thus understand that, under the circumstances, I am indignant about these changes we are asked to approve for the unemployment insurance program. I am thinking of the MIL Davie workers, whose numbers dropped from 3,000 to about 1,500 in six months. Six months from now, only 300 will remain employed; all the others will have to live on unemployment insurance benefits, which will have been reduced by these changes.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-17 is meant to implement several provisions of the budget but the main ones are those concerning unemployment insurance.

Even though several members spoke on the subject, I think that it is worth repeating the three main changes in the House. First is the increase in the number of weeks of work required to qualify for unemployment insurance. I stress this point first because, as the opposition critic for training and youth, it is clear that the future of our young people is my top priority. Now, one of the measures that will hit young Canadians who are excluded from the workforce the hardest is the increase in the number of work weeks needed to qualify for benefits. The first job that those young people can find is often precarious and very temporary and, in my opinion, the government's measure will hit them particularly hard.

The second change is the reduction in the number of benefit weeks according to the regional unemployment rate. That kind of attack began under the Tories, with Minister Valcourt, and continues with the present Minister of Human Resources Development, even though members of the present government condemned the Conservative policy. Today, the government wants to go even further by reducing the number of benefit weeks.

The third change is the decrease in the benefit rate, which once again goes in the same direction as the change brought about by the Conservative government, by lowering the rate from 57 per cent to 55 per cent of the salary previously earned. This will affect over 85 per cent of claimants.

I would now like to mention some statistics published in today's La Presse ; the source is none other than the Department of Human Resources Development. We learn that the changes brought about today will result in 44,000 people being deprived of UI benefits.

Is my time up, Mr. Speaker?

[Youth Action Plan, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the youth action plan was announced several times in the media this week, so its contents are an open secret.

Before presenting his youth plan, did the minister at least have the decency to first obtain the agreement of the Government of Quebec, since his apprenticeship program is another offensive in the field of education?