Yves Rocheleau

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 14th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to resume where I left out before Question Period. I said that so far the main characteristic of this government has been its lack of vision. I was talking about the conversion of military industries to civilian production, something we have not heard much about ever since the government wrote about it in its red book, so much so that recently, no later than last week, the Quebec Minister for Industry, Trade and Technology was getting impatient and-no matter how federalist and Liberal he is, just as this government-asked the Canadian government what was implied in the statements made in the red book. And since then, in spite of his influence, this minister has not heard a word regarding three specific matters of some urgency, namely Oerlikon, Paramax and MIL Davie.

There is another issue that brings to mind the notion of vision, if we can use that word, but in this case it is a machiavelic vision; I am referring to the Youth Service Corps. We know that one of the three objectives of this planned corps, which should involve 10,000 participants a year, is to promote a better understanding of Canada, and this, strangely enough, just before the Quebec referendum. We recognize there the consistency and the persistence of these same Liberals who were already very actively involved in the 1980 referendum and who used all means, from Pro Canada to the Council for Canadian Unity, to try to unduly influence the people in Quebec. Next time, they will outdo themselves, for sure!

We find the same lack of vision and political courage when it comes to the information highway. We know that in the United States the whole project is being spearheaded by the Vice-President, whereas here, all we have is a committee in name only which, completely in the dark, is supposed to be advising the government. This exemplifies the kind of political courage and vision this government has.

This is what was written in the red book, but things seem even worse when we look at what was not written down in its pages. The situation is even worse when you consider the actions of this government since the opening of the session, through the budget. I am referring to measures which were not mentioned in the red book. Indeed, when the government uses nice metaphors about modernizing, revitalizing or undertaking major initiatives, such as is currently the case with social programs, we cannot help but wonder about how sincere it is, about its real goals, and about the real motives of the Liberals even before they were elected, considering the measures they are now proposing to correct the situation.

The government targets the unemployed instead of unemployment; it targets the poor instead of poverty. Indeed, the government targets the poor when it decides to lower UI benefits from 57 per cent to 55 per cent, a measure which will affect 85 per cent of claimants.

The government is targeting the unemployed, when it decides they will need 12 weeks instead of 10 to be eligible for unemployment insurance. Does this mean that from now on employers, in a show of social solidarity, will hire five, ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-four, fifty, eighty, or a hundred employees for an extra two weeks so they can get their unemployment insurance benefits? That is not how it works. An employer needs an employee for a certain period, especially in disadvantaged regions, and unemployment insurance criteria are not a consideration when hiring people.

We should also realize that because of the latest amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act, people will receive less money for shorter periods of time. So the government is deliberately targeting people who work and often live in unenviable circumstances. The government has decided that from now on, they will receive less and receive it for shorter periods, although they will have to work longer to be eligible. If this is not hitting the unemployed instead of unemployment I would like to know what is.

If we consider the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act and if we recall the government's stated intention to modernize and revitalize social programs, is it any wonder we are extremely concerned about the government's underlying motives for making such sweeping changes in the administration of social programs and the whole concept of government intervention in this area, especially when we consider the following. Let me explain. In spite of consultations that were held and others that will be held by the minister on this subject in the months to come, we know, and this was made clear in the Budget speech, that this modernizing and revitalizing will save the public purse $7.5 billion at the expense of the most vulnerable members of our society, with more than $5 billion resulting from amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act.

When discussing these issues, we must not forget we are talking about fellow citizens and the conditions in which they live. We must realize that across this country, hundreds of thousands of Canadian men and women are living in a state of anxiety and poverty. We know how such conditions can lead to criminal activity, family violence, undue reliance on medication, malnutrition in children, and so forth.

I must say that I deplore the apparent lack of concern shown by many members opposite, including the Prime Minister, about a situation that is so disturbing and I would ask them to make cabinet members realize that something must be done to find intelligent and effective ways to improve the lives of these people. I think we can all say the unemployment rates in our ridings are intolerable, for instance in the Maritimes and Que-

bec, where levels are totally unacceptable, in Ontario, which is experiencing problems, and even in western Canada.

However, we should talk about the causes as well as the effects. In this kind of debate, which is a debate about the kind of society we want, one issue is particular important, and that is that in a few years, our society may start to resemble what we see in other so-called underdeveloped countries, where there are a wealthy few in a sea of poverty and a fast-disappearing middle class. I think that is something we should consider, namely, the kind of social structure we have and the kind of society we can expect in the future.

In concluding, I would like to quote briefly what was said by an economist at the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières. André Joyal, a resident of my riding whose work I admire, wrote the following in the Catholic magazine RND: "What we have experienced for the past 20 years is probably not, as is often said, just another economic cycle, but a thorough transformation of our society. A transformation as drastic as that caused by the steam engine in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries or by the agrarian revolution 10,000 years ago when our ancestors realized they could sow and harvest crops, which meant they could have permanent settlements. The society of tomorrow may be totally different from the one we know today".

In the same vein Louis O'Neil, a distinguished professor at Laval University, wrote the following: "There is no reason why we should accept, without further analysis, the disappearance of thousands of jobs, today's exclusion after yesterday's exploitation, job uncertainty, the dismantling of health care services, a return to inequality of access to knowledge, the pauperization of rural areas, and regional population loss. We have the right and the duty to oppose a return to unbridled capitalism, to a system which currently puts 35 million people out of work in industrialized countries and which triggers disintegration and impoverishment.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your giving me the floor at this particular time. I feel privileged. I am anxious to discuss this government's lack of vision in greater detail after question period-because I will not have time to do so now, unfortunately. I will tell you about this lack of vision in relation to numerous commitments made by the government in its red book regarding the fight against unemployment.

Last fall, the Liberal Party of Canada seemed aware of the reality facing Canadians and emphasized in a very convincing way-and, in fact, succeeded in fooling a few million Canadians, especially in Ontario and in the Atlantic provinces-that there were 1.6 million unemployed people in Canada, a situation which was unacceptable and attributable to the lack of vision, the lack of competence and the lack of political will of the Conservative government.

Now we can see what kind of innovative solutions the government has come up with. It wants to implement an infrastructure program which will create 45,000 temporary jobs, while there are currently 1.6 million people out of work. Such an initiative requires a lot of imagination indeed. It illustrates how this government, which was wise enough to hire good freelance writers at the right time, does not have the wits to devise innovative solutions which would significantly reduce the number of unemployed. I cannot believe that unemployment will significantly drop in the Atlantic provinces with the creation of 45,000 jobs, nor with 15,000 of these new jobs in Quebec where some 800,000 people are out of work. This shows a lack of vision regarding the unemployment issue.

There is a lack of vision but there is also a lack of consistency, considering what is written in the red book regarding the reconversion of companies from military to civilian production. There again, the Liberals had good intentions, but we have not heard anything since regarding this issue, whether in the Throne Speech, in the Budget, or from the Minister of Industry.

Yet, there are concrete examples such as Oerlikon, Paramax and MIL Davie, which has its own conversion strategy. So far, the government has steadfastly refused to get involved and ensure that MIL Davie, among others, which has its own conversion plan, can get federal support with the ferry to the Magdalen Islands and the smart ship which would be used everywhere.

[Product Packaging, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to commend my colleague from Winnipeg North for this motion which, in my opinion, will greatly benefit consumers in Quebec and Canada without forcing manufacturers to spend outrageous amounts to apply the new practices.

The introduction of this kind of motion is a clear indication of the member's interest, which I share, in the health of consumers and of the regard he has for them.

One must recognize that it is often difficult in this day and age to see and to interpret the labelling on products for sale. So, the House must absolutely ensure that manufacturers of food and beverages be required to print "best before" and expiration dates clearly and legibly in a non-encoded format. The Bloc Quebecois will support the motion. We will do so, Mr. Speaker, for various reasons which I will outline.

All of us in the House are consumers who, when shopping, do not always look for the expiration date, so we can sometimes buy products which are past their prime. This motion will ensure that the expiration date is clearly marked, so consumers will avoid mistakes. Thanks to the improved labelling of food products, from now on consumers will be able to buy only fresh products. Clearly printing a product's expiration date will show consumers that the manufacturer respects his customers and cares about their welfare.

Such a measure would be in line with the management philosophy related to the implementation of "total quality" in our businesses, a philosophy focused on identifying and adequately meeting customers' needs.

Another aspect of the proposed measure is the health of Canadians and Quebeckers. Using products after their expiration dates may be hazardous to one's health and it is our duty to protect the health and welfare of our people. Our children must be able to rely on healthy products that will allow them to develop normally.

A society as advanced as ours must have the means to recognize the freshness of its food products: it is a sign of an advanced society.

But this debate seems paradoxical to me in some respects, given the unacceptable situation faced by hundreds of thousands of Canadians and Quebeckers who live at or below the poverty line, as one would expect in an underdeveloped society. Mr. Speaker, consumers need money to buy-that is of paramount importance.

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the Liberal Party of Canada made a list of election promises in the famous red book. Indeed, the Liberal government promised Canadians in the election last October to create jobs, real jobs. Where are these real jobs? In the infrastructure program that creates only temporary jobs? What has the government really done? It wants to close the military college in St-Jean, which will cost at least 1,000 jobs. In manpower training, the government refuses to transfer any jurisdiction, funds or staff to the provinces. In income security reform, it will cut $7.5 billion over the next two years from the income of the poorest people in our society and thus cause poverty to increase, while tax shelters that benefit the wealthy are maintained.

The government must keep its promises to the people. It must now take concrete action instead of making pious wishes! Such action would involve not only the clear legible labeling of the freshness of products by manufacturers but also job creation, industrial restructuring, the conversion of military to civilian industry, help for small and medium-sized businesses and the creation of real jobs that will give Quebeckers and Canadians the money they need to buy fresh, clearly labeled products.

We talk about products available on the market, but if people have no money, how can they buy them? The mother who goes shopping for her family every week knows that well. How many mothers must choose what food to buy because they lack money? Parents no longer choose between shoes for the children and a summer vacation, but which child will have a new pair of shoes this year.

In the same vein, what can we say about the dozens of food banks all over Canada that are needed more and more so that thousands of Canadians and Quebeckers can eat regularly? Even worse, the almost permanent nature of these food banks is striking proof of the deep malaise affecting the Canadian economy.

As recently as yesterday, I met the managers of Moisson-Mauricie, a food bank located in my riding of Trois-Rivières. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate them and congratulate all of the volunteers who work there and thank them, on behalf of the people, for the remarkable job they are doing.

Moisson-Mauricie provides food products to about ten organizations which then redistribute the food to the needy. I was told yesterday that sometimes the food bank did not have any food to hand out. To me, it is sheer nonsense, it is an alarming and unacceptable situation which shows how serious this issue is.

Given these concerns, on behalf of the Official Opposition, I reiterate our support of Motion No. 217.

[Oerlikon Aerospace, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.

Will the minister not recognize the need to take urgent action instead of waiting for the company to shut its doors, as we saw happen with Hyundai?

[Oerlikon Aerospace, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry.

The daily newspaper Le Soleil reported that a ministerial briefing note addressed to a federal Cabinet minister expressed concern about the demise of Oerlikon Aerospace's operations in Saint-Jean. The note warned the government that the firm had very few orders on the books and that without a true diversification and conversion program, it was in danger of folding.

Now that the minister knows about Oerlikon's very uncertain future, does he intend to move quickly to support the diversification of the company's operations and thus ensure the survival of this high-tech firm which has seen its workforce shrink from 750 to 300?

[Supply, March 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. We in the Bloc Quebecois are not against the infrastructure program. We are against it being the solution the

Liberal government seems to have found to deal with a very serious problem in this country with 1,600,000 unemployed people.

I think this is easy to demonstrate. The government says it will create 45,000 temporary jobs, and we must remind you that when they talk about jobs, they talk about maintaining jobs; 45,000 jobs created and maintained for 1,600,000 unemployed workers. I do not see how the hon. member for Peterborough can think this will solve in any way the situation in his riding. Assuming that unemployment should be around 10 per cent-it is now around 13 or 14 per cent in my riding of Trois-Rivières-it is no reason to rest easy and tell ourselves that the government is up to the task.

Especially since-and I see the Minister of Human Resources is here-this same government is going after the unemployed rather than unemployment, the poor instead of poverty itself. We hear the government tell the poorest among us, those who are already in a bad spot, because unemployed workers are in a bad spot, that from now on they will get 55 per cent instead of 57 per cent of what they were earning and work longer to receive less, for a shorter period. I think they are going after those who are poorest.

They say we must modernize and revamp-the words they use are exceptionally subtle in denoting intellectual honesty-our social programs. We do not know how but we do know one thing as I speak: the government was able to figure out how much it will cost in two or three years, so it can spare the public purse by going after the unemployed and the poor: $7.5 billion, including $5.5 billion in unemployment insurance. We know that already. That is what I rise against when I hear such comments.

First of all, we have no real solution for reducing unemployment since the so-called infrastructure program is not a solution, it is not even a half-measure. At the same time, the government is going after those who are already hard pressed while leaving the richest Canadians alone. They create committees to examine whether their measures are justified or not. The time has come to review our thinking because the underlying process, as everyone is increasingly aware, is the disappearance of the middle class, like in an underdeveloped country with few rich people and a lot of poor people. This is what we think.

[Supply, March 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I do not think that we have to wonder if our young people are intelligent or not; we can take that for granted with the great performances recently turned in by Quebec youth internationally in the Olympics. We saw how competent and intelligent our young people could be.

What gets me, and I refer to something that happened to us in the past, is everything the federal government could do when Quebecers were deciding their future. We know how much the federal government got involved. We had Katimavik with Senator Jacques Hébert at the time, all that can be done to give our young people a feeling of belonging to the Canada of today and tomorrow.

We certainly know what the federal government tried to do in the 1980 referendum campaign. There was the Council on Canadian Unity through which the federal government got involved, although Quebec had a law limiting the "yes" and "no" sides to $2 million each. The federal government's involvement in the 1980 referendum is estimated to have been between $15 and $20 million. We are expecting a similar kind of operation when we see the government, as if by chance, come up with a similar initiative called Youth Canada which seeks to promote better understanding of Canada.

I repeat what your colleague, the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, said, a better understanding of Canada. He told us about the four main projects, the four major thrusts, and I think that in complete intellectual honesty we can suspect this government's intentions, what it intends to do about the future (of Quebec) and to make Quebec stay in Confederation, and as we say in Quebec, what are a few thousand bucks, Mr. Speaker, it never bothered them.

[Supply, March 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to participate in this crucial debate, given the current social and economic situation in Canada and Quebec.

First of all, I would like to congratulate my colleague the hon. member for Mercier who has introduced on behalf of the Official Opposition this motion denouncing the lack of innovation, imagination and vision of this government in terms of job creation, because we must realize the magnitude of this problem in this country.

In January 1994, unemployment in Canada was still hovering around 11.5 per cent and 12.5 per cent in Quebec. This means that there are currently 1.6 million unemployed individuals in Canada, 425,000 of whom are in Quebec. That is unacceptable and honest minds will see this constitutes an emergency, a situation which calls for action, concerted action.

The Liberal Party of Canada apparently understood this at the time-because timing is important here-of drafting the red book presented to the voters during the October 1993 election campaign.

On page 15, you can read the following:

-Canadians are facing hardship: 1.6 million unemployed, millions on welfare, a million children living below the poverty line, record numbers of bankruptcies and plant closings.

Our overriding preoccupation is to offer a government that will help in solving problems and in creating opportunities for Canadians.

"Jobs, jobs, jobs" was their theme. A catch phrase that the people of Canada heard over and over, raising the hopes of many, particularly in Atlantic Canada and Ontario, that the government would finally see to it, as promised, that this hardship be alleviated as mentioned earlier.

At this time, I would like to digress for a moment to deplore the fact that this type of conduct seems to have become contagious. When we see Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson making easy, demagogic promises over which he has no control, there is a common denominator: everywhere we find Liberals who do such things. But have no fear, Mr. Speaker, Quebecers know the score; they are not so naive and will not be fooled; they will be able to judge those who have been in office for nine years and who let this situation deteriorate.

Let us return to the federal scene, which is our immediate concern. What are the Liberals doing now about the commitments they made in their red book? What about it, Mr. Speaker? There is a huge gap between what they say and write and what they do. What has come out of these commitments? A coast-to-coast infrastructure program, in which the government will invest $2 billion, it seems, with the co-operation of the provincial and municipal governments. How many jobs will we create for the 1,600,000 unemployed? It seems that we will create 45,000 temporary jobs. How many in Quebec for its 425,000 unemployed? Fifteen thousand temporary jobs. You should realize that this is what this government has proposed to meet its commitments: 45,000 temporary jobs, which include not only jobs that are created but also jobs that are maintained.

Of course, there is the Youth Service Corps that is also mentioned in the red book. Here is what it says on page 35: No group faces bleaker economic prospects than Canadians under 25. A Liberal government will help return hope to young Canadians by creating the Canadian Youth Service Corps, which will involve 10,000 young people a year. Mr. Speaker, do you know how many people under 25 were unemployed in Canada last month? There were 428,000 unemployed Canadians under 25, 18 per cent of this age group in the labour force, and this percentage and this number are increasing every month. What do they propose? A youth service corps with a fourfold mandate: community service; discovering and understanding Canada, as my colleague, the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, said last week in this House; environmental awareness; and personal growth.

That is very nice, it is well intentioned, but we have seen other Katimaviks, we have seen other schemes dreamed up by senators, but that is not what Canadians and Quebecers need, especially the young people we were just talking about. They need specific job creation measures to meet their needs, to give them back their dignity and, in the case of young people, to give them back their collective future and their personal future.

We do not need projects like Katimavik, but we know how interesting it could be before a referendum to take young people who are vulnerable, especially in Quebec, and give them the proper conditioning to show how much people care about them and how good it is to live in this very democratic country that has no work for them. We know all that can be done with that target group to win some more votes to keep Quebec dependent on Canada.

In these two cases, faced with the same unemployment problem, we see the very serious problem of joblessness affecting the Canadian economy and the people of Canada. All that this government has been able to find so far are half-measures, the infrastructure program and the youth service corps, things that skirt around the issue, that do not really solve the problem but that can be described as a sort of smoke screen, pseudo-solutions for problems that the government seems completely unable to solve, despite its claims.

The same goes for the information highway, a scientific and technological project, but what are they doing about it? What is the action plan? What funds are being allocated to it? All we know is that since October 25, 1993, the minister concerned, the Minister of Industry, recently appointed an advisory committee that will study the information highway, behind closed doors. Meanwhile, our American neighbours apparently have a fairly well-defined action plan, which has the full support of the U.S. Vice President.

Without knowing where we are going, we have appointed an advisory committee that, until further notice, will meet behind closed doors: such is Canada's electronic highway, Mr. Speaker.

This illustrates very well the attitude of this government; we do not know where it has been nor where it is going.

Regarding these commitments, we can honestly say without fear of being mistaken that this government has disappointed us, that it is beyond the hopes it had raised or tried to raise among Canadians with respect to infrastructure and the Youth Service Corps; it has only addressed unemployment in science and technology in the manner we just mentioned. The government is letting us down.

I would now like to speak to an issue I am particularly interested in as industry critic: industrial conversion. Let us refer once again to the red book stating the government's intentions in this area and others. On page 55 we read this: "The defence industries today employ directly and indirectly over 100,000 Canadians. The end of the Cold War puts at risk 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".

That was the vision, the intentions of the Liberal Party of Canada in terms of industrial conversion. It was a wise, enlightened vision of the situation but unfortunately, after this document was released, we never heard again of this government's so-called vision or intention to encourage the conversion of military production to civilian production.

Yet, this sector is in dire straits. Between 1987 and 1992, the deliveries of arms manufactured in Quebec fell by more than 48 per cent, almost by half, from $1.6 billion in 1987 to $810 million in 1992.

Businesses in the defence industry are value-added high-tech manufacturing ventures where salaries are high. The number of Quebecers working in arms production is estimated at over 46,000. Electronics, aerospace, general transport and EDP are the most active sectors in the defence industry. The major defence companies are very well known: Bombardier, CAE, SNC, Lavalin, Pratt & Whitney, Bell Helicopter, Expro, Héroux, Marconi, Paramax.

All these companies were successful in finding their niche in an international competitive environment. Together, they are responsible for over one quarter of all the research and development work done in the Montreal region. They have always enjoyed the federal government's financial support to develop defence capacities.

This shows how the conversion of these defence companies, given the geopolitical changes occurring all over the globe, is important, especially in Quebec, to maintain a healthy high-tech industry.

During the election campaign, the Liberals made four major commitments regarding industrial conversion. First, to expand the mandate of the Defence Industry Productivity Program or DIPP, to help the industry convert and diversify, a $150 million program. Second, to establish an economic conversion commission, with the participation of industry and labour, to facilitate and coordinate the process of conversion in the defence industry. Third, to develop joint conversion arrangements with the United States, the market for 80 per cent of our defence exports, in order to establish a concerted conversion strategy. Fourth, the conversion of Canadian military bases, for example in training centres for peacekeeping forces.

As we saw earlier, the government's intentions were illustrated by the closure of military bases, without reference to any kind of conversion. As for the new mandate of DIPP, it is said in the budget speech that, indeed, this mandate will be expanded in three years to possibly include some form of assistance for conversion and diversification. But at the same time, the government says that in three years, and not right now, the budget allocated to that program will be reduced by $10 million per year.

One wonders why wait three years given the problems of that industry, a slowdown of all activities, a reduced number of contracts in general, as well as a need to transform that military industry into a civilian one.

Moreover, we never again heard anything about this idea of setting up a commission to look at the conversion issue with the companies and workers affected.

Yet, there is in Quebec an example which seems to serve as a model for all researchers and university people interested in this issue. I am referring to EXPRO, a company specializing in military products, which is famous for having experienced all kinds of problems throughout its existence, including labour relations problems. When it realized that it was obviously and clearly in jeopardy, the company decided to come to grips with its problems, this with the support of its workers. It set up a manpower committee, made an in-depth review of the situation, hired consultants, established a diagnosis, and now EXPRO is a company with a civilian production instead of a military one. I think this is an example to follow. EXPRO is showing that where there is a will, there is a way.

Yet, the situation is serious, and some members of the aerospace industry have already reacted to the government's intentions, and especially to its lack of vision, as illustrated by its decision to cut in the military sector and elsewhere, without having planned anything to make up for the impact of these measures.

So, last week, representatives of this industry, who worry about the government's intentions, asked for an urgent meeting with the Minister of Industry to find out just what these intentions are and to discuss them with him. I am talking about such prestigious industries as CAE and SPAR Aerospace, which asked to meet with the minister because of the government's attitude and lack of planning. We do not know what transpired,

but we sense that there is a malaise in this industry regarding the government's actions, or lack of action.

We have to be aware of the dangers which would threaten our economy should inertia, a lack of planning, or a lack of vision guide the government's actions and policies.

There is a precedent in Canada. A very high-tech industry of the time-I am referring to the AVRO ARROW case in the fifties-had to cease operations, which resulted in thousands of Canadian engineers leaving the country to go to the United States, thus triggering a massive exodus of brain drain.

If the government fails to take any action, the same will happen to the Canadian economy which, in a matter of a few years, may lose a very substantial number of qualified people who might otherwise have stayed here to try to turn the situation around.

Furthermore, while in Canada there seems to be a conspiracy of silence in this respect, in the United States the Clinton administration plans to provide $20 billion in assistance over the next five years for defence conversion. Here in Canada, $150 million will be spent over the next few years on defence research, and this $150 million will decrease by $10 million annually, starting in 1996-97. There is a difference in vision between the two administrations which is enormous.

What is particularly exasperating, and shocking as well, is that there are plenty of projects that could be converted. The Bloc Quebecois was very clear about that during the debate on cancelling the helicopter contract. It is not just cancelling the contract but knowing how we can make the best of the situation and convert a project that was rather questionable, from the military point of view, to civilian production that will benefit the population and ensure that the know-how will stay, in Quebec in this case, and that it will be used for civilian purposes and that the budgets will be maintained.

At the time we said that after cancelling the helicopter contract, the government should proceed with construction of the high-speed train. The manufacturing process would require equally complex technology which would have made it possible for our researchers and scientists to stay here and continue to develop and do research, but this time for civilian industries. If the government were to go ahead with this project, it would be able to develop new expertise in a field with a very promising future, apparently, in North America, and Quebec and Canada would be able to capture a substantial part of the market so that the principal expertise in North America would be spread from Quebec City to Windsor, via Trois-Rivières. However, the project is on the back burner, and the government does not really know where it is headed in this respect. Once again, the government lacks vision. There is also the sad case which we will not forget, despite the government's apathy, namely the case of MIL Davie of Lauzon. This company, which built military vessels primarily for the Canadian government, is facing a situation where it will no longer receive any contracts because of the government's decision to pull out of this field. The company has come up with its own conversion plan depending on the good will of the current government which could, if it wanted to, award the contract to build the Magdalen Island ferry to this shipyard.

We learned again yesterday that the government does not know where it stands. It still does not know whether it will order a new ferry to be built or whether it will purchase one from a foreign shipyard. If the political will existed, the contract would have been awarded to MIL Davie a long time ago, since it has a conversion plan in place and has the facilities to build the ferry. If the government were to proceed on this, it would be killing two birds with one stone, that is it would be keeping our domestic know-how here in Canada and would be conducting research and development and converting former military facilities for civilian purposes.

In conclusion, I have to wonder where all of this is leading. Clearly, this government is guilty of lacking vision and empathy for the situation experienced by hundreds of thousands of Canadians and Quebecers. This government does not know in which direction it is heading. It lacks not only vision, but also the political courage to address the real problems facing people.

The red book is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Personally, I am deeply disappointed and concerned because these are old methods which today have led to public cynicism. People realize that during election campaigns, candidates say just about anything. Once in office, however, they continue to provide the same kind of government and style of administration they once criticized. Nothing changes. This type of cynicism is encouraged and this contradicts the nice statements made in the red book.

How is it that today's Liberals and yesterday's Tories seem to have so much in common? I will conclude on this note, Mr. Speaker, perhaps because there is a common denominator. Both parties are financed by the same persons. They both feed from the same trough and both produce the same results.

[Canada Expo 1994 Trade Fair, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Expo 1994 trade fair opens tomorrow in Mexico City. Over 400 companies and 1,000 business people will participate in this event.

Today, we want to make up for an oversight by the Prime Minister's Office. Indeed, it is unfortunate to see that, in its documentation prepared for the media, the Prime Minister's Office did not mention one single example of successful Quebec company in Mexico, while it does name several companies from elsewhere in Canada.

Consequently, we want to mention the success, in Mexico, of Quebec companies such as Bombardier, Canam-Manac, SNC, Roche and several dozen others.

We also take this opportunity to wish the best of luck to all Quebec companies participating in this important trade fair.

[Petitions, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to present a petition initiated by several Quebec organizations and signed by 628 people in the riding of Trois-Rivières.

These petitioners ask the Parliament of Canada to refrain from any rent increases for low-cost housing, housing co-operatives and non-profit housing and that it reverse the freeze on the budget of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to provide for the construction of new social and co-operative housing.

The situation is becoming increasingly difficult for tenants in social housing, and the answer to our problem is not to attack them but to review tax shelters that allow Canadians who are better off to get rich at the expense of people on low incomes.