Yves Rocheleau

[Aerospace, June 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. In 1988, Canada made a commitment to participate with other partners in the international space station program, which is to put up a huge experimental laboratory in orbit around the Earth. This station will have a significant impact on scientific progress in many areas. However, the Martin budget announced a substantial reduction in Canada's participation in this project.

Can the minister give an update on the status of negotiations with NASA, so we can see how Canada could maintain its partnership while reducing its financial contribution over the next 10 years?

[Conversion Of Defence Industries, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Does this mean that the Minister of Industry was refused the financial resources required to implement a true conversion strategy, which might explain why he is now extolling the virtues of DIPP, which was so strongly criticized by his party when it formed the opposition?

[Conversion Of Defence Industries, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as we recently saw, the Minister of Industry totally distanced himself from the election promise made by his party to transform the defence industry productivity program into a conversion instrument rather than a program supporting civilian technology for military purposes.

My question is: Will the minister explain why DIPP, which was not deemed adequate to facilitate industrial conversion when the Liberal Party formed the opposition, is suddenly perceived as an effective tool to facilitate the conversion of military industries to civilian production?

[Hibernia Project, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the release, this week, of a new study on the Hibernia project gives us another opportunity to express the concerns of Canadians and Quebecers who see this megaproject has a financial black hole. This study by two professors from Memorial University, in Newfoundland, shows clearly the folly of this undertaking which requires billions of dollars of public money just to survive. Even the General Secretary of OPEC was, this week, casting doubts on the economic validity of this project.

By stubbornly refusing to demonstrate to the people of Canada that Hibernia will eventually be cost-effective, the Canadian government is proving once more that it does not know how to deal responsibly with public money. It is asking the population to continue to support blindly this shameful and unjustifiable waste of public funds.

[High-Speed Train, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate initiated by the hon. member for Joliette, whom I want to congratulate for raising what is, and will be, a major issue for Quebec. I am very enthusiastic about this project, and this for two reasons. First, because of its technical nature and, second, because of the regional development which might result from it.

As regards the technical aspect, I want to go back briefly to the election campaign, when members opposite put forward the idea of cancelling the helicopter building project. At that time, the Liberals received the support of the Bloc Quebecois on the condition that the cancellation of this contract be compensated, in terms of the financial and human resources involved, by the implementation of another major project. At the time, the current opposition leader had already suggested that this major project be the construction of a high-speed train line which, given its magnitude, could replace the helicopter project, in terms of the budgets involved and the skilled manpower required.

Unfortunately, the government only remembered the first part of the Bloc's position and simply cancelled the helicopter project without providing any alternative. This is a tragic decision, considering that this whole issue is related to the industrial conversion or, rather, the lack of industrial conversion which, in the last five years, has resulted in the loss of 11,000 high-tech jobs in Quebec alone.

In that context, the high-speed train project would, given its technical nature, give a real boost to the economy of Quebec and Canada.

In terms of regional development, the magnitude of the project makes it very appealing for all the regions along the Quebec-Windsor corridor. Indeed, because of its magnitude, the project, which would involve costs of $8.5 billion, would also create 127,000 jobs for ten years. Considering all the claims made by the members opposite and their slogan about jobs, jobs and jobs, and considering that they have so far only proposed infrastructure projects, they should seize this opportunity, especially since they already know that the opposition will support the creation of real jobs which will have a real impact, unlike a lot of the jobs related to the infrastructure program, which merely maintain employment levels or are only temporary in nature.

Especially since 70 per cent of the project would be privately financed, with only 30 per cent being funded by three governments for a total of roughly $2.5 billion. According to all projections, 50 per cent of this amount would be recovered as soon as the construction was completed, with $1.8 billion in spin-offs and fiscal revenues generated during the actual construction.

So, we are talking about very important regional spin-offs, economically as well as socially. It is estimated that the French city of Lille has enjoyed $1 billion in regional spin-offs from hotels, office towers, convention centres, restaurants, and so forth.

One must also realize that such a project targets a potential North American market which could be worth $200 billion over the next twenty years.

We must, therefore, act quickly because the Americans are poised to jump into the fray. In the United States, 18 to 20 high speed train projects are now being considered and should become a reality. This shows how important it is for Canada and Quebec to position themselves to carry out this project without delay, relying on the help of our small and medium-sized businesses, each of which will develop a certain expertise. This expertise can, in turn, be subsequently exported, if we act quickly.

As the member for Trois-Rivières, I have a special interest in this project, not only because I hope it will get the go ahead, but also because I hope that it will extend to the Saint-Lawrence North Shore and that a station will be built in my riding, the city of Trois-Rivières, which also happens to be the regional capital of the Mauricie area.

The Mauricie region has a population of 300,000 and extends from La Tuque in the north to Bécancour and Nicolet in the south. It is comprised of a number of relatively well-known municipalities such as La Tuque, Saint-Tite, Shawinigan, Grand-Mère, Shawinigan-South, Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Trois-Rivières-West and Louiseville in the west and Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade in the east. Right in the middle is the city of Trois-Rivières, the regional capital, where you will find a

rather flourishing university and many cegeps and private schools, as well as important companies, multinational and national corporations, like Kruger, Tripap which was just launched by the Fonds de solidarité, Reynolds in Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Alcan in Shawinigan, Belgo in Shawinigan, the Cartonneries Saint-Laurent, the former PFCP in La Tuque, the Aluminerie of Bécancour in Bécancour, Norsk Hydro, SKW, CIL and Didier, the last few are all companies based in the Bécancour industrial park, which need an efficient and adequate transportation system to grow.

In fact, one could claim that some measures have already been taken and that, consequently, we need to go ahead with the high-speed train project. For example, the train no longer stops in Trois-Rivières. The former government, in its wisdom, decided to eliminate the Montreal-Quebec City run on the North Shore. Despite this decision, however, $2 million was spent on the intermodal terminal in Trois-Rivières. The bridge which had collapsed at Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade was rebuilt at a cost of $7 million and the Gare du Palais in Quebec City was refurbished at a cost of $60 million. All of this work would facilitate the eventual development of a high speed train.

I want to take this opportunity to request the co-operation of all stakeholders in my region. I want them to know that they can count on my support and, I am confident, the support of all my colleagues from the Mauricie region. I hope that the mayors and all the associations and lobby groups seize this opportunity and realize the importance of this project and its potential impact on Trois-Rivières. I hope that all of our region joins in so that if ever the HST becomes a reality, it stops in Trois-Rivières.

The HST must become a reality. When the opposition discusses the project, it deals in facts. Already, the mayors of all of the principal cities involved have held a meeting. We have here before us the former mayor of Toronto, now the President of the Treasury Board, who co-signed an important brief which was submitted to the government. We have the former mayor of Quebec City, a close friend of the Prime Minister and his chief of staff, who also co-signed the brief along with the mayors of the four other cities involved.

The HST project must come to fruition. All stakeholders directly concerned are unanimous on this point. Moreover, in the opinion of the chairman of the board of directors of VIA Rail who has been studying this matter for the past ten years, this is not an improvised project. In my view, the federal government would not have to make any new outlays of money and would only need to maintain the subsidy currently paid every year to VIA Rail for the upkeep of the Quebec City-Windsor corridor. It would not have to come up with any new money and would only have to continue providing the subsidy for 25 years. Therefore, no additional financial effort would be required on the part of the federal government.

Another reality mentioned by the chairman of VIA Rail is the fact that the rolling stock used on this section will have to be renewed over the next ten years. This will carry a tremendous cost and, rather than changing for equipment already obsolete, why not embark on a modern project which would fulfil the new needs of our societies.

There are other advantages to such a program that I should not forget to mention. There is naturally the improvement of passenger rail service as such, then there are reductions in air pollution, in road traffic, in airport congestion, and there is finally, as I already said, the promotion of regional development all along the corridor, whether it is in manufacturing or trade.

To conclude, I only wish that like France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan and shortly Korea and Great Britain, we had a HST between Quebec City and Windsor which would use the North shore and stop in Trois-Rivières. This project would be a joint venture between the governments of Canada, Ontario and Quebec, notwithstanding the comment by my colleague from the Reform Party who said that, given the risk that Quebec might become sovereign, we should perhaps delay or rethink such a project.

I do not think that such words are worthy of a chamber like this one, given the attitude of the Official Opposition with regard to the bridge to Prince Edward Island, which the Bloc approved right away; or given the money that Quebec contributes to a project like Hibernia, as mentioned by my colleague from Témiscouata. I also doubt the appropriateness of remarks like the one made by the Prime Minister when he said there would be a border between Quebec and Ontario. We told him in the House that there is no border when we go from Montreal to New York with Amtrak, so why should there be one between Quebec City and Windsor. We should not fall for that kind of argument. This project is so important, so promising, that only public interest should be taken into consideration.

[The Outaouais, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, after 127 years of federalism, the Outaouais is still neglected by the federal government and receives only 1 per cent of the $2.5 billion in federal contracts which are awarded every year. This shameful neglect on the part of the federal government proves how totally indifferent it is to the economic development of the Outaouais and the creation of jobs in this area. Such an attitude has a disastrous impact on its economic situation.

The fact is that the federal government, while saying it champions the cause of the Outaouais, is actually promoting the inequality which has persisted in the Outaouais and Ottawa-Carleton regarding the awarding of federal contracts.

After decades of fruitless protests and demands, Quebecers, especially in the Outaouais, have now understood that it is only through sovereignty that they will be able to develop their country.

[University Of Quebec At Trois-Rivières, May 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this year the University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières celebrates its 25th anniversary.

On this occasion, I wish to pay tribute in this House to the founders and pioneers of this institution, and especially to its first president and founder, Gilles Boulet.

This institution has already graduated over 35,000 students and is now a centre for research and intervention with an international focus, and more specifically in the field of pulp and paper, hydrogen and small business development. It is also the only institution in the world to offer a doctorate program in chiropractic medicine, in French.

Education and research and development provide the tools we need to provide for the future and sustain our economic and industrial development. The University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières is an outstanding exponent of this principle.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, May 9th, 1994]

You can be sure, Mr. Speaker, that I am pleased to speak for the second time on Bill C-22, an act respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, in Toronto.

The Pearson Airport is the biggest airport in Canada, with 20 million passengers yearly, that is some 57,000 daily. It occupies 1,792 hectares, includes three terminals and employs 15,000 people. Some 800 aircraft land every day at Pearson and take off for 300 destinations in 60 foreign countries. This is the only Canadian airport that can be considered a true crossroads.

According to a 1987 Transport Canada study, Pearson has a $4 billion direct economic impact on the economy of the province of Ontario and was directly and indirectly responsible for over 56,000 Ontario jobs. It is by any estimation more than the sum of its parts or the total of its assets and liabilities. It is a critical national gateway and a hub service to travellers, families and shippers. It cannot be duplicated by any other facility in the area, indeed the province or the country, although Vancouver is getting there and Montreal has the potential. This combination of its economic and social importance to the region, the province and the country, and the fact that it is a unique service for which there is no alternative, transforms the airport, in my opinion, from a simple transportation facility into one of the most important public assets in the southern Ontario and Canadian economy.

After all the speeches we in the Official Opposition made on the subject, you surely know that our biggest reservation about the bill, indeed our strong protest, relates to clause 10, which reads as follows:

10.(1) If the Minister considers it appropriate to do so, the Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, enter into agreements on behalf of Her Majesty to provide for the payment of such amounts as the Minister considers appropriate in connection with the coming into force of this Act, subject to the terms and conditions that the Minister considers appropriate.

That is the problem. You also know by now that the opposition supports the cancellation of this shocking contract because there are many reasons to do so. What convinced me, I must say in all humility, is the Nixon report that I read in full several times. I understood why Mr. Nixon, Liberal as he is-and an honourable man, close to the circles we are talking about, including the Prime Minister's friends-because of his fairness and his sense of responsibility, had no choice but to talk about "manoeuver".

A careful reading of his report shows why he used such strong language. In Webster's New World Dictionary, "manoeuver" is defined thus:

To manipulate or scheme.

So this is indeed strong language.

I would like to bring to the attention of the House some excerpts from the report that are very informative and illustrate the cloudy, obscure and shocking nature of this affair.

As we in the Official Opposition have repeated on many occasions, we need a royal commission of inquiry to determine whether or not there were shady dealings involved.

For example, on page 5, there is a short paragraph that gives us a hint on the scheming. Scheming is the common thread that runs through the entire Nixon Report. Let me quote the following paragraph:

In the calculation of gross revenue (on which rent will be based), there are 10 deductions which I am advised are unusual in commercial transactions.

Mr. Nixon also goes on to say that T1 T2 Limited Partnership, which would oversee the airport's administration, is a multiple rather than a sole purpose corporation.

According to Mr. Nixon:

The lease does not restrict the freedom of T1 T2 Limited Partnership to carry out an undertaking other than the management, operation and maintenance of Terminals 1 and 2. Therefore, the financial health of T1 T2 Limited Partnership could be adversely affected by the financial failure of a venture which has nothing to do with the management, operation and maintenance of Terminals 1 and 2.

With respect to passenger traffic, the report states the following:

The Government of Canada undertakes not to permit development of any airport facility within 75 km of the T1 T2 complex that would reduce passenger traffic at Pearson by more than 1.5 million persons per year, until the volume of passenger traffic at Pearson reaches 33 million people per year. Present projections predict this number to be reached by approximately the year 2005. If the Government of Canada chooses to engage in such proscribed development-

The scheming is clear, as is the understanding between those who are close to and exert undue influence on the government.

Another interesting and revealing point is worth citing:

About the end of September 1993, T1 T2 Limited Partnership represented to the Government that it had entered into 10 contracts with non-arms length parties-

therefore parties with ties to the project, Mr. Speaker-

-prior to October 7, 1993. One of these was said to be a construction management agreement with Matthews Construction. This information was not publicly disclosed.

We must know that Matthews is directly involved. It is a party to the whole deal and closely linked to Paxport's operations. It goes on to say:

After permitting the privatization of Terminal 3 at Pearson, the process to privatize Terminals 1 and 2, the remainder of the largest airport in Canada, is inconsistent with the major thrust of the policy of the Government of Canada announced in 1987.

It is under this policy that the government rejected the offer made in 1989-90 by the same players. Time and undue influence having done their job, the government showed a great deal of interest in 1993, and we know what happened.

Another very important finding of the Nixon report concerns the proposal submission time frame:

The RFP having as it did only a single stage and requiring proponents to engage in project definition as well as proposal submission and, all within a 90 day time frame-

As we know, even with a $700 million investment, people have only 90 days to decide. I now continue with the quote:

-created, in my view, an enormous advantage to a proponent-

namely Paxport. That is what I call scheming, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Nixon goes on to say:

-that had previously submitted a proposal for privatizing and developing T1 and T2.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, given everything surrounding this deal, we are surprised, first, that the report itself does not make that suggestion and, second, that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, despite all its claims to transparency in the red book, did not do it. A royal commission of inquiry must be set up to shed light on this shocking event that, in my opinion, brings shame to Canada and its institutions.

I remind my friends opposite that the Liberal red book emphasizes in several places the need to restore people's trust in their government by making it more transparent. Disturbing facts in this case lead us to question the transparency of the Liberal government and the previous government as well as the legitimacy of any decision to compensate the businesses involved. The Lobbyists Act is a key element of this transparency. I will close by quoting an excerpt from chapter 6 of the red book dealing with the question of transparency and lobbying:

The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable. If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored.

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that this is a complex issue. That is why, as I mentioned in my statement, we must approach it as tactfully as possible, and abide by the rules. We must call upon all existing resources of businesses that have already had the foresight to proceed with conversion. These resources should be used by businesses planning to convert. As I said, when a business intends to convert with the help of the state, all

stakeholders must be genuinely and completely involved, that is the employer, labour unions and regional players because this process can sometimes have a tremendous impact on a region. The Quebec government must also be involved because of its thorough knowledge of this question within the Quebec context.

Of course, this does not preclude-and this is the way the issue is set out-seeking out all those who have some expertise in this field to help speed matters along and ensure that case by case, the situation improves and production is geared to new markets. I think this is one point on which we all agree.

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but disagree with what my distinguished colleague just said because it contradicts the Liberal Party's own platform.

In view of the disastrous economic situation we are facing, with 11,000 high-tech jobs lost in Quebec alone over the past five years, we are being told that it concerns only the private sector. Personally, and it was also the Liberal Party's position last fall, I consider the public interest is at stake and that the state-and I could quote again from the document I read earlier-should play a leading role in promoting recovery.

What we are saying is not to spend without thinking, but rather-that is at least how I see things personally-that the minister should ask companies where jobs are continually lost because they are no longer able to obtain contracts: "Where is your conversion plan? Show us a decent plan, a plan that is well thought out, well structured and pragmatic, a plan with a vision and we will help you."

The government's present position however is more along the lines of washing its hands of the matter, leaving it up to free market and free competition and relying on companies that have proven more innovative than others such as Magna International Inc., a Montreal business mentioned earlier. Perhaps these companies have had a keener eye, more business acumen and more vision. Perhaps not all companies are to blame, but I think that this government has the duty to question these people in the public interest, because we cannot let this go on, with engineers and skilled technicians finding themselves out of work and possibly getting ready to put their skills to the service of foreign economies. Our economy may never recover from that.

I think it is the role of government, not only that of the private sector, to manage the economy sensibly, like a reasonable man as we used to say. The Liberal Party said, and I agree: "The government obviously has a social responsibility in this matter."