Yves Rocheleau

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as industry critic for the opposition, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on a motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, for which I want to congratulate him. His motion concerning industrial conversion reads as follows:

That this House condemn the government for its unacceptable delays in developing and implementing a genuine strategy for the conversion of defence industries to civilian production, which would save and create new jobs in high-technology sectors.

This motion shows how concerned we, in the opposition and in the Bloc Quebecois, are about this whole issue of industrial conversion, given the current situation.

You have to realize that the problem is very acute and the situation is very serious. During the last few years, defence expenditures have decreased. In fact, in only seven years, from 1987 to 1994, they have dropped by 10 per cent. According to some experts, defence expenditures are expected to fall by another 25 per cent in the next few years. This 10 per cent drop in activities has had devastating effects throughout the West. In Europe, for example, 600,000 jobs have already been lost. In the United States, 700,000 jobs disappeared in five years. By the year 2000, about 1.6 million jobs will have been lost because of the reduction in military production. Here, in Quebec, as was mentioned earlier, 10,000 workers in the defence industries have already lost their jobs.

According to some analysts, in Quebec, there are about 650 businesses directly or indirectly involved in military production.

Around forty of those are mainly and fundamentally involved in military production, a high-tech sector where much emphasis is put on research and development. So, we are talking about highly-qualified workers, who are highly paid, and, as you know, for every job in this high-tech industry, there are five indirect jobs.

Faced with this very serious problem, there is only one conclusion to be drawn. We urgently need a strategy for the conversion of defence industries to civilian production. The nature of manufacturing must be changed.

Here is Canada's position in the world market: in 1992, Canada was the eighth arms producer in the world, with a production value ranging from $3 to $7 billion, depending on the products. We should know that 70 per cent of these products are exported and that 80 per cent of our exports go to the United States.

In view of the reduction of military activity that was talked about earlier and that has caused the loss of 700,000 jobs in the United States, we can already see how the situation is threatening for Canada and Quebec, since the market is constantly shrinking.

Once again, that is another way of seeing the urgency of the situation and the need to redirect all military production effort at the present time.

We should also know that the federal government's intervention in military production has been specifically a type of intervention called the Defence Industry Productivity Program, better known as the DIPP. The DIPP is defined as follows:

The main mission of this program is to support businesses in the defence industry, mostly in aeronautics and avionics, to facilitate and consolidate research and development activities, to establish suppliers networks in by-products and components for these sectors, and to promote investments and exports in these high-value added manufacturing sectors. The objectives of the program are to assist defence businesses in remaining competitive in the world markets and the Canadian market.

In 1989-90, three years ago, the DIPP had a budget totalling $300 million.

In 1992-93, the budget was only $226 million, a reduction of a little over 25 p. 100. This means that Quebec received $168 million dollars in 1989-90, and only $80 million in 1992-93, a reduction of 52 p. 100, whereas the total budget has been reduced only by 25 p. 100. Given this, the Opposition now feels that this program must be revisited and that the DIPP mandate of military equipment promoting agent must be changed, so that part of this budget will be allocated to the conversion of defence industries into civilian production.

The Opposition is not saying anything new when making such remarks. For once that we agree with the Liberal Party, let us capitalize on that. I believe we agree with them more than they agree among themselves. This may be the difference between this side and that side. On this side, one can make remarks, on the other side, one must implement them. This is not always easy. Power is painful and difficult to assume. We understand it.

The press release of March 26, 1993 says a lot about the intentions of this government. This press release was cosigned by the leader of the Opposition, now prime minister, the present minister of Human Resources Development, the present member for Labrador and his colleague for Willowdale, who was then the critic for industrial affairs. It states three major commitments. "Expand the mandate of the Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIPP) of the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, which has a budget of $200 million, in order to add to it a support element that would facilitate the conversion and diversification to areas such as environment technology and advanced technology for peacekeeping".

Second recommendation: "The creation of a commission of economic conversion in co-operation with industry and labour in order to facilitate and co-ordinate the conversion of the military industry which today employs some 100,000 workers. Sign conversion agreements with the United States, which import 80 per cent of our military equipment production". And finally, "the conversion of military bases" which has already started. We can already see the position taken by the Liberals.

There is one aspect that I would like to draw to your attention because I think this is the source of the hesitation of the government regarding the role of the state in that area. Yet, the Liberal Party was very clear at the time, that is only 14 or 15 months ago which is not a whole life time.

I would now like to quote the second paragraph on page 3 of their press release: "The Liberal Party believes-and we are reliably informed that this is the cause of the hesitation of the government-, believes that the mandate of the state is to take initiatives that are in line with the evolution of the international scene and that create jobs for Canadians. A plan must be adopted to encourage our military equipment industries to turn away from that type of production and export. We commend the sub-committee of the House of Commons on arms exports which adopted our view in its report of September 1992 and made useful recommendations that were in good part inspired by liberal ideas".

Being consistent, the Liberal Party underlines this fact in its red book, which led many Canadians to support them especially in Ontario and in the Maritimes. The red book, on page 55, reads as follows:

The defence industries today employ directly and indirectly over 100,000 Canadians. The end of the Cold War puts at risks tens of thousands of high-tech jobs. A Liberal government will introduce a defence conversion program to help industries in transition from high-tech military production to high-tech civilian production.

Specifically, a Liberal government will expand the mandate of the Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIPP) to assist in a conversion and diversification.

That is what the Liberal Party says.

DIPP is the primary grant and loan program designed to influence the development of a defence industrial base in Canada. Administered by Industry, Science and Technology, it aims at developing defence technology and strengthening Canadian and North American defence industries.

So, the Liberal Party was already agreeing to fund the defence conversion using the DIPP budget.

Oddly enough, we have not heard a single word about that since the red book has been released, neither in the Speech from the Throne nor in the Budget Speech.

The Bloc position is more or less the same. I will explain it briefly. It aims at creating, in three steps, a conversion fund flowing from the industrial diversification fund. The fund would mainly consolidate and complement the assistance coming from existing programs in order to provide military facilities and businesses with adequate and long term support in their conversion and diversification process. It would also bring about consultative committees on conversion at local and regional levels, when the scope of conversion and diversification activities would warrant them. It would help in establishing an independent committee that would review the various existing programs that could be helpful and to put forward amendments and other improvements that could be required. That committee will propose a framework to ensure coordination between the different levels of government in order to avoid overlappings.

Besides, Mr. Speaker, I can remind you of the position taken by the Bloc that was largely inspired by the position taken during the campaign in the debate on the cancellation of the helicopters contract. The Bloc Quebecois supported the position of the Liberals, who sensed that power was within their grasp, and said that the contract should be cancelled provided that, let us not forget that, the money earmarked for this contract and the know-how needed to build the helicopters was transferred to a civilian project which would benefit a lot of people. The Bloc had clearly indicated that a high speed train linking Quebec City, Trois-Rivières and Windsor met both criteria.

Unfortunately, the government acted upon only one of those two recommendations, and cancelled the helicopter deal. Since then, Canadians and Quebecers have been left hanging, without any compensation whatsoever.

Therefore, DIPP should be modified so that, instead of promoting defence production as it does now, it helps military industries to convert to civilian production.

One must realize that, in Quebec, there is a solid consensus among all the stakeholders in this vast project, including the Quebec government which has expressed its impatience several times already through its Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, Mr. Gérald Tremblay. No matter how federalist and Liberal he is, he did not mince his words and said, on April 11 last:

In its red book, the federal government promised to make available to DIPP, significant sums of money for converting defence industries to commercial production. We are presently negotiating with the federal government. We want to know how much money will be made available, when and for which company.

These are the very words spoken by the Quebec Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

The Conseil du patronat du Québec, which-you will admit, Mr. Speaker-is not necessarily a natural ally of the Bloc Quebecois, is another stakeholder. A few months ago, precisely in September 1993, it held a symposium entitled "Rendez-vous économique 1993", and came up with two main recommendations pertinent to our present debate. Recommendation 31 said that the federal government should provide adequate financial support for the conversion of industries dependent on military contracts.

This financial help would last as long as it takes to adapt, convert and diversify defence industries.

The implementation of conversion and diversification activities would be planned by conversion committees, made up of representatives from industry and labour in the affected communities and representatives from the Government of Quebec. This is the position of the Conseil du patronat which, in its first

recommendation-and this is very relevant to the concerns of the Official Opposition-said that the federal government should give MIL Davie a contract for about $6.5 million to design, and then another contract for $200 million over three years, according to the figures of the Conseil, to build a prototype of the "smart ship" we hear so much about.

This ship would fill urgent and recognized needs of some federal departments, but it would also be the prototype of a series of similar ships for the international market, a promising and expanding market. This is the position of the Conseil du patronat, but it is supported by the CNTV and the FTQ. So, the Government of Quebec, the Conseil du patronat and the two largest unions in Quebec all agree on that point. The CNTV said in a press release dated October 31, 1993:

Between 1987 and 1992, Quebec lost 11,000 of its 57,000 jobs in the military sector. Jobs are still disappearing. Since more than 60 per cent of contracts are awarded to companies in the Montreal area, it is essential that forces stick together to obtain a realignment of government industrial policies, especially in the military sector which comes under federal jurisdiction.

Two days earlier, on October 29, Mr. Fernand Daoust, then president of the FTQ, had said:

Considering that the future government wants to cancel the helicopter contract, we want to know the projects which will be put in place to provide the 8,000 jobs for 12 years that the Prime Minister is going to abolish without serious analysis of the issue.

As we were told a moment ago, the decision to cancel the helicopter contract, without any compensation, demonstrated a total lack of vision.

To show you how serious the situation really is in Quebec, I will quickly give you the level of dependency of companies. Let me name a few just to show how serious the situation is: Bendix Avelex Inc. depends on military contracts for 70 per cent of its production; Canadian Marconi, 55 per cent; Héroux, 80 per cent; MIL Davie, 91 per cent; Oerlikon and Paramax, 100 per cent in both cases and SNC Technologies, 95 per cent.

As far as job losses are concerned, Bendix lost 350 jobs, Anachemia Canada Inc. 68, Marconi 1,480, MIL Davie 2,740, Oerlikon 410, Expro Chemical Products Inc. 300, Héroux 131, Paramax 1,000, Pratt and Whitney, 200 and I could go on and on; Vickers lost 350 jobs.

This goes to show how much we hope the government will abide by the promises it made to the public; when governments shamelessly treat commitments that way, I think we have a right to be worried about democracy. It could mean they can say anything to the constituents but after election day, fight shy of their commitments and I think this is very serious. When we speak like this, the figures do not seem like much but we must remember that when we talk about unemployed people, we are also talking about human lives, families, careers, educated people leaving the country, brain drain or the outflow of know-how.

Somebody told me this morning we can even use the term hemorrhage. In my view neither the economy of Quebec nor that of Canada can afford such a hemorrhage.

In conclusion, if, as we wish, the government takes action to help the DIPP and point it in a new direction, I hope it will do so according to generally accepted practices and will respect conventions. The minister mentioned it before, it is not enough to talk about manpower adjustment committees; I know these committees, I worked with them for eleven years; they give good results in traditional circumstances.

The money given must be administered by committees where the employer and the union concerned will be duly represented, along with representatives of the region. The context must be considered and the government of Quebec has to be consulted, since it is very sensitive to that issue and very interested. These committees must study the situation on a case by case basis, according to the type of activities carried out until now. Indeed we must realize that manufacturing ammunition and making satellite telecommunication devices are two operations that are very different.

These committees should examine the situation, ensure that a dialogue is initiated and reach a consensus about the new orientations and the changes that need to be made to everyday management practices. This is a proven formula that should work. I really hope the government will act upon the positive proposal put forth by the opposition today, which is to see that the situation improves. It particularly makes sense if we recall the government's pretensions, with its slogan "jobs, jobs, jobs", and the 11,000 jobs lost in the high technology sector. We have to demand a minimum of consistency on the part of this government.

[Supply, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan said about the F-18.

I think it would be a good idea to remind the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan of the historical facts on the F-18. We need to place the F-18 events in their historical context. In this regard, we must remember that during the referendum debate, after our friends opposite got involved, in particular the hon. member for Saint-Maurice, who was already a minister in Mr. Trudeau's Cabinet, Quebecers were promised a carrot: "If you vote against the Parti Quebecois' proposal to give them the mandate to negotiate eventual sovereignty with all related commitments, we promise you, first of all, that the superspecialized F-18 will be built in Quebec". That was the carrot.

And I remember in the 1980s seeing follow-up analyses saying that, according to the experts, the promises were never kept. Either I misunderstood the member from the Reform Party or he does not know-that is his right-but I hope we will no longer hear such remarks, as though Quebecers' concerns were whims, to use once again the words of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice.

I would like to suggest to my dear colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan, who is responsible for recruiting Reform Party members in Quebec, that such comments will not help him in his task.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, May 4th, 1994]

Let me congratulate my colleague on his intellectual rigour. It shows that he must not come to the House often. In fact, I have not often seen him here myself. Mr. Speaker, you will surely agree with me that it is difficult to discuss this bill for 40 minutes, given that it is a slim piece of legislation and, as the minister said, a rather dull and boring one at that. Furthermore, unless he talks nonsense, a member has a right to use his speaking time to discuss subjects which he deems to be timely.

As I was saying, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling concerning telephony and communications which gives the federal government full jurisdiction. It is the federal system which is at issue here and I will not hide the fact that Quebecers are deeply interested in this subject.

The federal system is at issue here. To say that telecommunications-telephony, for example-come under exclusive federal jurisdiction is to deny Quebec's distinctiveness, one of the key points of the Charlottetown Agreement, which by the way was unanimously rejected.

In other words, for the hon. member's information, as Quebecers and Canadians must ponder the situation, I hope that Quebecers will realize that if they ever decide, in a referendum, to remain within Canada as a province, they will have to accept centralization.

That is the conclusion to be drawn from such measures. Decisions concerning the military college, social program reform, manpower training, telephony and communications all reflect a growing tendency on the part of the federal government to centralize major powers in Ottawa, and to consider provincial governments henceforth as regional governments. This is the context in which Quebecers will be deciding, in a referendum, whether or not to keep Quebec in Confederation.

In the time I have left, I want to come back more sensibly-my colleague will be pleased-to the issue of Bill-C-12. I said earlier that the government must have better things to do and you only have to look at all the statements and the promises of the red book to see what I mean. I want to quote what it says about research and development, technology, small and medium-sized businesses, and economic development. On page 52, it reads: "It would also create a climate that encourages pre-competitive research in various sectors of the Canadian economy. A Liberal government will further strengthen R and D, especially in small and medium-sized business, by encouraging technology partnerships between Canadian universities, research institutions, and the private sector that emphasize the commercial applications of research and development". For your information, Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what is going on in the pharmaceutical industry.

Again, the red book says: "A Liberal government will continue to support basic research, including the provision of stable funding for the granting councils, the National Research Council, and the Networks of Centres of Excellence".

It is so nice that I could go on and on. It is so very interesting but that goes back to last fall. Since then-and that is the complaint I have against this government-the government has not kept its promise-for which it was elected by Canadians from Ontario and the Maritimes, among others-but it introduced minor measures like Bill C-12. As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, it is a waste of time, a waste of energy and a waste of money to deal with such an issue.

Reading the red book and seeing the negligence of this government, I am led to say that it is more and more obvious, and absolutely necessary, that people take charge of their own destiny all across Canada, and particularly in Quebec, in every region of Quebec.

I want to tell you that as far as people of my riding, the riding of Trois-Rivières, are concerned, they have already started to do so. This is wonderfully exemplified by the re-opening of the former CIP Forest Products plant, which had closed down, causing the loss of 1,200 jobs, if memory serves me well. This plant has just re-opened, thanks to the involvement of the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec; and if it has been re-opened, we must understand that it is because its workers had never given up. They made all the necessary representations, they made everybody aware that it was unacceptable that such a large plant, in a city like mine, Trois-Rivières, could close down for good. They managed to get the Fonds de solidarité involved. I take this opportunity to congratulate them for that.

There are other areas where people of my riding have understood and are doing something. First of all, at the CEGEP of Trois-Rivières, which is famous for two things, its Centre for Metallurgical Technology and its Centre for Pulp and Paper Technology, two specialized centres which are increasingly

serving the needs of metallurgical as well as pulp and paper industries all across Quebec.

And secondly, at the Université du Québec in Trois-Rivières, there are also people with a sense of imagination and vision who have set up a research group on small and medium-sized businesses to make sure that more universities know the problems of such businesses in order to better train young people and give assi

In a field which has a very bright future, there is also a hydrogen research centre which, you have to admit, is a high-tech field. This hydrogen research centre is attracting more and more attention and, given the importance of this product for the future, could have a remarkable development in the coming years.

Lastly, I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that l'Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières is the only institution in all of Canada to offer a doctorate program in paper engineering. This is another illustration of our region's capacity to show its resourcefulness and its determination to take charge and make its presence felt more and more in Quebec as well as abroad.

In closing, and my friend will be happy, I would like to talk about Bill C-12 and say that we all know that it is the first part of a two-part law, the second part of which will come in three years and address much more important issues related to the operation of small and medium-sized businesses, like the responsibility of directors, insider trading, for example, and take-over bids.

It seems that these issues, and the government is still consulting, will be addressed in two or three years. The position of the Official Opposition is that we cannot oppose such a bill; although it is uninspiring, it is important in its technical aspects, and we understand that it makes technical changes which should improve the operation of our businesses. Consequently, the Official Opposition is for this bill, in spite of everything.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, May 4th, 1994]

Yes, the military college was another fine mess. The Liberal government is forced to admit they have neither the desire nor the money to maintain the only francophone military training institution in America.

In tomorrow's Canada, in order to receive military training, francophones will have to go to a most anglophone city-which is all right-that has no facilities to make them feel welcome. The government say they have no choice. They have neither the desire nor the money to go on. That gives an idea of the Canada in which Quebecers will have to live, if they decide to remain a part of it.

What can we say about social program reform besides saying that again the government is in a jam? When one is obviously and deliberately taking it out not on unemployment but on the unemployed, not on poverty but on the poor, when the only thing we know about the government is that they will consult for two years-only to cut $7.5 billion in social programs at the end of the consultations, the situation is serious! When it is the unemployed and not unemployment, and the poor as opposed to poverty that are attacked, I say we are in a jam!

As for manpower training, the federal government stubbornly wants to keep jurisdiction over it. However, everybody in Quebec, employers as well as union leaders, school board members, Department of Education or Quebec government officials, whether federalist or not, everybody agrees that vocational training should be entirely under Quebec jurisdiction. But no, the government, for reasons known only to itself, is stubbornly hanging on to manpower training, after a two-year study involving goodness knows who, whereas everyone in Quebec is saying that it should withdraw from this area.

The last issue has to do not only with the government opposite, but with the federal system as well. I will not hide the fact that for sovereigntists like myself, it is very good news indeed to know what the rules of the game are in this country. The Supreme Court has just given us some idea of what they are with its ruling on telephony and communications where it said that however distinct Quebec might be, it had no rights over this field.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, May 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am allowed 40 minutes.

When the government acts, we know the results.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, May 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to demonstrate that the government should have other priorities than Bill C-12 and should not tackle such things as reviewing the pharmaceutical legislation the way they have been doing. That is the point I want to make, and they are not through hearing about it. As far as I am concerned, I am not through talking about it.

Bill C-22, which was tabled before Bill C-91 and cleared the air, was a success. Between 1987 and 1991, companies invested almost one billion dollars, half of that amount in Quebec, to such an extent that in 1991, research reached 9.7 per cent of sales in 1991 compared to the 3 per cent rate under Mr. Trudeau. While this is a marked improvement, it does not make up for lost ground.

How can a country complaining because it is lagging behind in research by contrast to other countries and also because it is not part of some high tech industries manage without one of the major high tech industries? The red book recognizes that our research is lagging behind. I will come back to that later.

We will not give up on the issue of pharmaceutical patents, which is critically important for Quebec. In fact, the pharmaceutical industry typefies Quebec industry. It is one of our finest industries, and we will not let the lobbying of members from Ontario, especially from Toronto, lower Quebec economy to such an extent.

I think that something happened last week, when my colleague, the member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie, quoted Confucius when responding to the minister of Industry who himself had quoted Shakespeare, a bit nastily, I must say.

The member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie quoted Confucius and said: "Culture is like jam; the less you have, the more you spread it". That struck me. I thought about it last week, if I remember well, while working on my lawn. I wondered why my colleague for Laurier-Sainte-Marie had quoted Confucius in those terms. After having given this matter much thought, I finally realized that it contained a message, a subliminal message. There was something symbolic about it. By "jam", he meant "in a jam". In a jam because of the failure of the government. Failure, especially if you make a report card after six months. I believe the government is celebrating that anniversary of its official and legal victory.

If you take a look at the situation, I think "in a jam" is the right expression. Let us recall, for instance, the issue of cigarette smuggling. Without the determination of the Official Opposition, we might still be discussing this whole issue. In the meantime, smuggling was flourishing in Quebec, resulting in loss of revenues for the government-which, in itself, was terrible enough. Also, because of civil disobedience, a whole climate was created where everything was challenged-our institutions, the role of the government, respect of the law, even social peace.

The government argued that there was no evidence of smuggling. It took weeks, but the opposition did not let go, and finally the government took the necessary measures.

Take another example, the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean. Here again, I want to show you-in case the member does not understand -that there are more important things to do than discussing minor bills such as this one. And, in our opinion, when the government does act, it does not necessarily act in the right way.

[Canada Business Corporations Act, May 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate and I agree with the minister when he says that this bill may be part of the government strategy to sometimes be dull and boring. Indeed, this is not a romantic piece of legislation, and it does not generate a lot of controversy.

As you know, Bill C-12 is an act to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Therefore, this legislation purports to amend the Canada Business Corporations Act. It allows for the implementation of technological innovations such as electronic filing and facsimile transmission of documents, it simplifies certain statutory procedures and record-keeping and filing requirements, and it makes the administration of the Act more effective.

Its object is to modernize the federal Canada Business Corporations Act. This act, which was passed in 1975, is a commercial law regulating about 190,000 Canadian businesses which were incorporated under it.

Half of the 500 largest businesses in the country were incorporated under that legislation. The government wants to amend the act in two stages, Bill C-12 being the first of those two stages.

A review of this legislation shows, as we in the opposition see it, four major changes which will allow businesses to improve their operations from a technical point of view.

The first of these changes is the fact that businesses will now be able to use electronic means to transmit documents. This should facilitate communication between businesses and the department.

Another provision allows current directors to appoint, under certain circumstances and if the rules of the corporation so provide, a limited number of directors. It must be pointed out that until now shareholders were the only ones who could appoint the directors.

The third change is to the effect that, from now on, companies will have to keep official documents such as accounting records and files for a minimum of six years. Obviously, we agree that this measure should help reduce the paper burden, but we wonder if a period of six years is sufficiently long.

Finally, privately-held corporations will no longer have to disclose financial information. This measure is criticized by the Order of Chartered Accountants, which worries about the impact it will have on the accounting profession. We must also realize that this measure will remove an injustice that may have existed before, in that provincially licensed companies had an unfair advantage because they did not have to disclose such information; federally licensed companies will now have the same status.

It is not easy to take position on such a slim bill. However, we must realize that, like other bills, it will take up a great deal of time and energy. That is why opposition members feel uncomfortable with this bill because there is still so much to do. There is so much to do with regards to the economy, to small and medium sized businesses and their development, that the government is not doing. Let us take, for instance, the paper burden small and medium sized businesses especially must carry, just to serve the government.

According to some studies, these businesses spend one out of five days dealing with government red tape. The government is aware of that, as it acknowledges in the red book. On April 28, the Minister of Industry announced a 29-member committee would be set up to study the issue of red tape among other things. As everyone knows, including the officials of his department, there have been numerous reports and the solution proposed by the government-it is like a reflex of this government-is to form a committee to study the issue; 29 people from coast to coast will consider the issue of government red tape. It is a waste of time.

Some adjustments would probably be easy to make, however. Knowing how competent federal public servants are, they could consult with their provincial counterparts, including those from Quebec, who are very competent.

Adjustments could be made to the program, and the procedure that companies must follow for exports, for example, could be simplified. Why not try to come up with ways to make it easier for small and medium sized businesses and others to export, which is vital for the economic development of Canada and Quebec? Why not refine what is offered to small and medium-sized businesses to encourage research and development? The Liberal Party of Canada made a big issue of it in the red book.

Why not ask officials, without striking a committee, to find ways of streamlining the forms, of reducing the delays in order to help small and medium sized businesses effectively, tangibly, pragmatically to do research and development? We know how complicated it is; I worked on it before. It is extremely complicated for a company to qualify for research and development tax credits, for example.

Easy ways must be found to help companies in that regard, just see to it. Companies must be helped to find ways to modernize their equipment, to give them the training that exists on the market to increase their productivity, to be more competitive internationally. Everything must be done to ensure that companies take the total-quality approach more and more. This is essential if we want our companies to be recognized, both here as subcontractors and internationally. Today, with ISO 9000, there is an international standard to help make sense of all the complexity in the world and to identify the companies considered qualified by a third party and those that are not. All our companies must be encouraged to come up to the ISO standard.

Even more serious, not only do we see no government interest or concern for these small things, which could really turn the situation around for small and medium-sized businesses if the government cared. Not only do we not sense any willingness on the part of the government, but we are moving backwards in areas such as military conversion programs, about which the government was very eloquent in its red book and made a lot of commitments. However, not a word about conversion was said by the minister, in the Throne Speech or in the budget speech, even though there are areas, in Quebec for example, where the military industry is very important. We will address the issue of the military industry tomorrow. The military industry must be revamped everywhere in the West, because of the evolution of the geo-political situation. As everyone knows, the Cold War is over, at least in the form we have known it until now.

We must make some adjustments to help industries move from military to civilian production, but there is no co-operation in this area. The government does not seem to be really concerned, since all it did was skim over the issue in some of its speeches. However, we have companies in Quebec, like Oerlikon and Paramax, which are in trouble. They have lashed out against the government. They cried for help again fifteen days ago. Help us, because if you do not and we do not get any more military contracts, thousands and thousands of jobs will be lost. Only in Quebec, the military industry has already lost 11,000 jobs in the last five years. These were high tech, high paid, and high-knowledge jobs. That is not the kind of jobs we can afford to lose in Canada and in Quebec, where the economy is already staggering, as we all know.

The situation with MIL Davie is also very important for the Quebec City area. If I am not mistaken, it is the largest company in the Quebec City area and it depends on government contracts. It needs the help of the federal government through a project that would meet a need, and I am talking here about the Magdalen Islands ferry. There is also another project, the smart ship project, which is important for the future of Quebec and Canada. Among other things, this multifunctional ship will be used to help settle regional conflicts as well as for UN peacekeeping missions. These projects should be a priority, but the government does not seem to have the political will to move on them.

This is an issue, and not only the Bloc Quebecois says it, since the Quebec Minister of Industry, Commerce and Technology, although he may be a Liberal and a federalist, has recently denounced the Liberal government by saying: "You see, you even wrote it in the red book". I heard it with my own ears on the radio. He was alluding to some form of political will by saying that it was nice to have written it, but what was behind the text? Where is the political will? We have not heard anything about that since.

It is not crying wolf to talk about this issue and to repeat that, if we do not do anything, we should be aware that we might have another brain drain, as we did in the late 1950s. Meanwhile, the Americans are developing their economy, they are here, they are everywhere, they are the giants and, as with the Avro Arrow in the late 1950s, they will come and get the best people from Canada and Quebec to develop their economy.

Another issue where we are going backwards is the fight against unemployment and the so-called job creation. Drawing from the red book, the government implemented the infrastructure program, indeed, $6 million in Canadian investments, including $2 million from the federal government. This program is supposed to be the main action and, so far, is the only one coming from this government to fight unemployment. The number of unemployed stands at 1.6 million, and this program will create 45,000 jobs. We must suspect that a very good number of these infrastructure jobs are seasonal, temporary jobs such as repairing sewers, roads and bridges. This will create many temporary jobs; of the 45,000 jobs created they say that 15,000 will go to Quebec.

They have nothing more to say and quite the contrary they brag about it. Weeks and months are passing by and this is all they have been able to find. They see this as a panacea and they think that this will solve the problem of 1.6 million unemployed. It is a shame to have so little imagination, to lack that much of the courage required to find another solution. I find this outrageous.

If there were a political will, there is an initiative that could go ahead readily, whatever the Prime Minister thinks of it, and that initiative is the high speed train. The project, which would link Quebec City, Trois-Rivières, and Windsor, could go ahead immediately but the government went wrong in that case. During the election campaign, the Bloc Quebecois supported the cancellation of the helicopters contract and everyone agreed to that. There was nevertheless something implied in what the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the member for Lac Saint-Jean, said. It was that we should take the necessary steps in order that the expertise and all the budgets allocated to the helicopters be used for immediate and imminent development of the high-speed train. The government retained a part of the suggestion, since it cancelled the helicopters contract but as a result, thousands of workers lost their jobs.

I do not think this is the way to go to ensure economic development. We should note, and this is not coming from us but from the president of VIA Rail who said last week, and he should know what he is talking about, that the HST would create 127,000 jobs over a period of 10 years. Furthermore, according to the scenario favoured by the president of VIA Rail, this would

require absolutely no additional funds from the federal government.

That project would have many technological spin-offs and create jobs of all types, high technology or more simple ones, in all regions of Ontario and Quebec. Its impacts would be highly beneficial, mainly, as you have guessed I am sure, in the St. Maurice Valley, if first, it is implemented, second, the line is built on the north shore and third, the HST stops in my riding, in the regional capital of Trois-Rivières.

The third issue, and this one is dramatic because we can even talk about negligence in this case, concerns pharmaceutical products; the influence of lobbies is felt everywhere, most of all the lobby of Ontario members and ministers from the Toronto area.

There are two types of drug manufacturers, those who create new drugs and do research and development, and generic drug manufacturers, who copy existing drugs. Most of the first ones are located in Quebec where they do research and development.

Last Monday, I met a representative of the Canadian Drug Manufacturers Association. You need to know that it takes from 10 to 12 years to develop a new drug, before it is certified, licensed, tested and what not. I am told that it costs an average of $360 million to develop a new drug.

That industry is concentrated in Quebec. Bill C-91 was passed under the former government with the support of the Bloc Quebecois and over the opposition of the Liberal Party of Canada, although that party was divided over the issue. I could come back to that later. That bill extended to 20 years patent protection for drugs developed by those innovative companies. New drugs cannot be copied.

The proposal before us would provide for an immediate review of Bill C-91 even though the bill itself specifies such a review will not take place before 1997. And this, again, much to the dismay of the Quebec Minister of Industry, Commerce and Technology, being the federalist and Liberal that he is, who was reported in Le Devoir on April 28, 1994, as saying: ``The federal government's decision to review the legislation protecting drug patents for 20 years is creating uncertainty and its indecisiveness is scaring away potential investors in the strategic sector of pharmaceuticals. A $50 million investment was to be announced last week but was postponed owing to the federal government's indecisiveness''.

The Quebec manufacturers' association strongly opposed any attempt by the federal government to review this act.

Finally, I will quote from La Presse , which is hardly sovereigntist and neither is its editor, Mr. Alain Dubuc, who wrote in an editorial comment yesterday: The research investments matter is neither a joke nor a multinational piece of cake. The Trudeau era policy''-this should ring a bell for the members opposite-of eliminating patents was a disaster. Canada's pharmaceutical industry literally dies away, with research funding dropping to 3 per cent of sales, as compared to approximately 14 per cent in the United States, France and Germany. Bill C-22, which repaired the blunder, was a success; from 1987 to 1991, companies invested nearly $1 million, half of which in Quebec-

[Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, May 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate and thank our colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for his speech. One can see how sensitive and knowledgeable he is about the subject.

I have a technical question to ask him. He mentioned a measure suggested which would allow farmers who suffer damages to kill one animal per season. I fail to see how this could possibly change or improve the situation, and I fail to see what impact this could have.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take my turn in this debate on Bill C-22 respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport in Toronto.

I assume that, after listening to all the speeches we have had so far, you have realized that the very serious reservations of the Official Opposition about this bill concern section 10, which reads as follows:

1. (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.

Mr. Speaker, I imagine you have also understood that the opposition approves of cancelling this highly improper contract because there are many reasons for doing so. I became convinced after reading the Nixon report several times from start to finish. I found out why, although Mr. Nixon is as Liberal as they come-a very well connected Liberal who is very close to the circles we are talking about, including the friends of the Prime Minister-why his intellectual honesty and his sense of responsibility forced him to use the word "maneuverings".

After carefully reading his report, one realizes why he had to use this word, which could be translated in French as " magouillage ''. The Petit Robert defines the word magouille'' as follows: Manoeuvres, tractations douteuses ou malhonnêtes ''. The English definition is: ``Maneuverings, questionable practices or shady dealings''. So this is pretty strong language.

I thought I would simply bring to the attention of this House a few passages from the Nixon report which are self-explanatory and which illustrate the murky and shocking aspects of this affair, and as some people are saying, we may need a royal commission of inquiry to determine whether bad faith was involved.

For instance, on page 5, there is a short paragraph that gives us an indication of the maneuvring, and a theme that runs through the entire Nixon report, and I quote:

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 said that T1 T2 Limited Partnership, which would manage the airport, is a multi-purpose rather than a sole-purpose corporation.

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.

The report also says, with respect to air traffic:

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-

-we can see the manoeuvring, the understanding which exists among people who are close to the government, have undue influence and who may even, and we will see this later on, condition and intimidate senior officials-

-it must either pay economic loss to the Tenant

-we know who that is-

-or provide the Tenant with access to Area 4 at Pearson, an area explicitly excluded from

the RFP.

Another interesting and revealing point.

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

-in other words, parties connected with and involved in the project-

-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.

The point is that Matthews is directly concerned and involved in the whole transaction and was closely connected with the activities of Paxport.

The report also says the following:

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-

-this is fundamental-

-with the major thrust of the policy of the Government of Canada announced in 1987.

It was on the basis of this policy that the offer made in 1989-90 by the same parties was turned down by the government. With the passage of time and as a result of intense lobbying, the government became very interested in 1993, and we know what happened.

Another consideration in the Nixon report, a very important one this time, concerns the time frame the parties were allowed to submit their proposals.

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-

-we are talking about an investment of $700 million, and people are being given 90 days to position themselves.

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

-Paxport-

-an enormous advantage-

-this is the maneuvering-

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

This was referred to earlier. It was the proposal turned down in 1989.

Other management and construction firms not having been involved in the maneuvering-

-this is Nixon speaking-

-preceding the RFP had no chance to come up to speed and submit a bid in the short time permitted. With little construction and development occurring-

-by honest people-considering the state of the economy in Toronto as well-

-others should have been sought out and given reasonable time to participate.

Further, it is significant that no financial pre-qualification was required in this competition. For a project of this magnitude the selection of a "best overall acceptable proposal"-

-that was the basic criterion-

-without complete assurance of financial viability seems to me to have been highly unusual and unwise.

Finally, the concluding of this transaction at Prime Ministerial direction in the midst of an election campaign where this issue was controversial, in my view flies in the face of normal and honourable democratic practice. It is a well known and carefully observed tradition that when governments dissolve Parliament they must accept a restricted power of decision during the election period.

There is no question that a financial deal of this magnitude-$700 million-which would have privatized a public asset for 57 years should not have been signed at that time.

I will end with one of the conclusions of Mr. Nixon, who believed that the process: "to privatize and redevelop Terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson fell far short of maximizing the public interest". Therefore, considering all that surrounded the "negotiation", it is imperative-and one is astonished that the report does not make any recommendation to that effect, and that the Prime minister who preaches openness in the red book has not taken any action in that direction-that we have an inquiry that can get to the bottom of that shocking event that is so damaging to the reputation of Canada, a country known for the quality of its institutions.

[Petitions, April 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to present in the House a petition started last October by a coalition of 24 organizations in the Saint-Maurice-Bois Francs area, at the suggestion of the Third World solidarity committee of Trois-Rivières.

This petition shows that 275 organizations throughout Quebec have endorsed the demands of the coalition by a resolution of their executive, which means that more than 350,000 Quebecers not only support the substantial reduction of our military budget but request that the amount saved be invested in the fight against poverty, in jobs, health care, education, the environment, Third World aid and reducing the deficit.

I was also given more than 6,600 cards signed by as many people from my riding and across Quebec and containing the same request for the Prime Minister of Canada. These cards do not, however, meet the standards of the House for official tabling, but I can assure petitioners that I will be glad to send them all to the Prime Minister's office within the next few days.

The Third World solidarity committee of Trois-Rivières is to be commended for its outstanding humanitarian initiative.