Stéphane Bergeron

[Pearson International Airports Agreement Act, May 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, you will remember that in the last election campaign, the Liberal Party and its leader kept on saying that if elected, they intended to lead this country with honesty, integrity and openness and that they wanted to consult the people and Parliament, either in this House or in various committees.

However, I think that we can question this government's real desire to really consult and to be open. Yes, we have had some debates in this House that are rather unique in Canadian history, debates on fundamental issues like the presence of Canadian UN troops in Bosnia-Herzegovina and in Croatia, and on cruise missile testing on Canadian territory.

But often we feel that we are involved in these debates in a very symbolic way, since we sense that the debates are being used to legitimize decisions that have already been made by the government. One reason that I think we can question the government's real desire to listen to what is going on in this House is Bill C-22. For two weeks, my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and in the Reform Party have spoken in this House to explain why we think this bill is unfair and unacceptable, but the government seems to pay no attention to what we say in this House.

Liberal members rise one after another to defend this bill which we think is completely unacceptable. We think that the very principle of privatizing Pearson Airport is questionable.

The unethical nature of this affair and the shady dealings surrounding the signing of the contract to privatize Pearson Airport have been brought to light. My colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve this morning raised a very interesting question: why were they so keen on privatizing Pearson Airport?

It was and still is the most profitable airport in Canada. In 1993, it generated profits of about $23 million, according to what we were told. So why privatize it, especially since the approach proposed by the Conservative government at the time was to entrust airport administration to local authorities, to turn the administration of airports over to those people who were most aware of the needs of the region. Even so, and in spite of its own airport management policy, the government decided to go ahead and privatize Pearson Airport.

We saw how swiftly they proceeded with the privatization of Pearson Airport, and called for tenders within 90 days for the contracts to manage Terminals 1 and 2. As of 1992, only two bids had been received, one from Paxport and the other from Claridge, which already managed Terminal 3. The government awarded the contract to Paxport, without even bothering to check the financial stability of the company.

What happened next? Paxport was forced to merge with Claridge. Yet, Paxport had been the preferred choice precisely so that Claridge would not have a monopoly over the management of the three terminals. Finally, the two companies merged under the name of Pearson Development Corporation, and a contract with the consortium was concluded within one day, at the very end of the election campaign. Up to then, the Liberal Party had kept relatively quiet about the deal.

Considering the public's reaction, the Liberal Party promised to cancel the contract as soon as it took over the reins of government.

There was then some consensus among the public, the media, the Liberal Party, the Ontario Government and the Bloc Quebecois that this deal, which was especially profitable for the parties concerned and especially harmful to passengers, had to be cancelled. It was said that the Pearson Development Corporation intended to raise passenger fees from $2 to $7, which would have generated additional revenues of $100 million.

The first logical thing for the government to do would naturally have been to cancel this deal without any compensation whatsoever and to undertake a serious, independent and open public inquiry into the circumstances of this deal and into the role played by lobbyists. Such an inquiry could have helped to distinguish stakeholders who acted in good faith from those who did not. And it could have allowed us to eventually compensate, if need be, parties who are entitled to compensation and to do so according to a public and open process.

The government might also have ensured that this never happens again by amending the Lobbyists Registration Act, thus allowing greater control of lobbyists. It might also, as the Bloc Quebecois keeps proposing in this House even if its proposition is never taken up by the government, have passed an act on the funding of political parties similar to the one in Quebec, which stipulates, first, that only voters have a right to contribute money to political parties, second, that there is a maximum contribution not to be exceeded and, also, that any donation in the amount of $100 or more must be made public.

Of course, such an act would prevent any suspicious collusion between major corporations and old federal political parties. Any new attempt on the part of the government to interfere in the Pearson Airport situation should be based upon openness, integrity and co-operation between all three levels of government and the various local groups involved.

Instead, after the election, the government decided to proceed with an internal inquiry, led by a former treasurer of Ontario, Mr. Robert Nixon, a very respectable man, I agree, who came to some very harsh conclusions about this famous contract signed by the previous government. Despite all of this, the government introduced Bill C-22, which leads us to believe that it is payback time for its old political friends.

Clause 9 of Bill C-22 states that there will be no compensation for any loss of profit or any fee paid for the purpose of lobbying. But in clause 10, the Minister of Transport is given the authority to provide, as he sees it, any compensation he considers appropriate to businesses he feels are entitled to be compensated.

In conclusion, I just want to add that section 8.6.3 of the request for proposal clearly stated that the companies would not be compensated. It said that all costs and expenditures incurred by the bidders for the preparation of the proposals are payable by the bidders. The government will not be obliged to cover these costs and expenditures, or to reimburse or compensate promoters, under any circumstances, including the refusal of the proposal and the cancellation of the project.

If those companies were aware, at the time of the tendering process, that they could not be compensated, why are they now expecting compensation from the government? This is unacceptable, and we will continue to oppose this measure and to use all our allotted time to stop this bill from being passed and get to the bottom of this.

[Customs Tariffs, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell this House which provisions will prevail in trade disputes between Canada and the U.S., that is whether or not

GATT will take precedence over NAFTA, and could he table in this House the legal opinions on which his answers are based?

[Customs Tariffs, May 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, after the question asked by my hon. colleague, this one will probably be a little tougher.

In announcing its intention to raise its tariffs on Canadian durum wheat and barley, the United States apparently wants to import less Canadian grain and, in turn, to challenge under the NAFTA provisions the maintenance of the GATT-defined tariffs that Canada intends to impose on products subject to quotas such as poultry, eggs and milk, where Quebec accounts for over 40 per cent of Canadian production.

My question is for the Minister for International Trade. Can the minister state in this House that the government does not intend to cave in to American pressure on tariffs and that it will not strike any kind of bargain with the various agricultural sectors in order to facilitate negotiations with the U.S. on exports of durum wheat and barley?

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

Mr. Speaker, I usually rise with enthusiasm in this House to speak to various bills introduced by the government. In fact, I often open my remarks by saying it is with pleasure that I will rise in this House to speak to such and such a bill.

Today however, it is without enthusiasm and even with disappointment that I do. I am taking part in this debate with no pleasure, but with the conviction of carrying out my duties and obligations as a parliamentarian.

It is indeed my duty to stand up in this House and publicly denounce the bill now being debated. The debate on Bill C-22 opened last Tuesday has brought to light an absolutely outrageous business. The contract to privatize Pearson airport entered into by the previous Conservative government has turned out to be an exercise in distributing presents to the friends of the system, the whole thing being engineered in an atmosphere of scheming and secrecy.

Allow me to recall a number of flaws that led eminently serious observers to come to that conclusion.

In 1993, Pearson airport generated over $23 million in profit. Under the contract passed with the Conservative government in the middle of an election campaign, Pearson Development Corporation was to operate Terminals 1 and 2 for an annual fee of $27 million.

At first glance, it looked like this transaction could be profitable to the taxpayers.

The picture changes completely once you know that the corporation with the winning bid was planning a 350 per cent hike in passenger fees, which would have resulted in a net increase in earnings totalling over $100 million annually, airport users footing the bill, naturally.

Air Canada publicly challenged this decision. To sugar the pill, Air Canada was also given a little bonus in the form of rent reduction, another cost to be absorbed by the taxpayers, naturally.

The reason given by the government to explain why it was not increasing fees itself and pocketing these substantial profits was the necessity to finance major redevelopment work in Terminal 1, to the tune of $100 million. Yet, in a huge fit of generosity, the government granted Pearson Development Corporation a 40 per cent rent deferral for 1994, 1995, 1996 and part of 1997.

While these amounts were to be eventually reimbursed with interest, the fact remains nonetheless that the government was reneging on its promise not to finance the modernization of Terminal 1 by accepting that rent be deferred over four years. Also, it is stunning to see the obvious lack of financial analysis in the development of these privatization agreements. No financial viability study was done, and Paxport, to which the contract was originally awarded, was faced with serious financial difficulties and decided to team up with its only competitor, Claridge Inc., thus creating a monopoly situation.

Yet, for some obscure reasons, the contract was not cancelled, even though it should have been. It must also be pointed out that, because the contract was split in two periods of 37 years and 20 years, the owners do not have to pay provincial tax, which would have amounted to ten million dollars if the contract had been awarded for a period of 50 years. Even if you include the cost of work paid by investors, the taxpayer is still the big loser in this transaction.

I also want to mention briefly that several newspapers have reported that the rate of return of about 14.2 per cent after tax given to Pearson Development Corporation was too high for this type of transaction. The media, the Ontario government, public opinion, and even the Liberal Party at the very end of the election campaign, have all voiced their opposition to that outrageous deal. Common sense dictates that the government should have gone to the bottom of this issue.

Unfortunately, this is not the case at all. Bill C-22 is not the beginning of a new era. It is a smokescreen to cover the dealings that took place. The government wants to avoid at any cost having to go to the root of the problem, which is first an acute lack of transparency in the privatization process, collusion between the old federal parties and certain private businesses, and also a lack of appropriate legislation to regulate the activities of lobbyists.

Last October, the government appointed a former Ontario Liberal minister, Mr. Robert Nixon, to conduct an in camera inquiry to find out about the dealings which led, as Mr. Nixon said in his report, to ``an inadequate contract arrived at through such a flawed process and under the shadow of possible political manipulation''.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the government that you rarely shed light on an issue when you look at it behind closed doors. Also, a former Liberal minister, regardless of his personal credibility, is certainly not the best choice to inquire about a transaction in which some key players are directly linked to the Liberal Party of Canada.

Following that inquiry, and in a moment of clear-mindedness and common sense on its part, the government decided to fulfil its election promise and cancel the formal agreement with Pearson Development Corporation. Unfortunately, the government did so in such a way that everything leads us to believe that it has every intention of paying off its political debts to its friends. When I say its friends, I mean those of both the Conservatives and the Liberals, since the people and companies involved in this mysterious transaction are very closely related to one or the other of these old political parties.

While it is true that section 9 of Bill C-22 provides that no compensation will be given in lieu of unrealized profits, or for monies contributed to lobbying activities in connection with public office holders, the fact remains that, in section 10, the government gives the Minister of Transport the arbitrary right to pay to people of his choice such amounts as he deems appropriate.

Does not that open the door wide for some more abuse? Under section 10 of Bill C-22, the government can compensate and even reward individuals and corporations involved in a rather sordid deal which not only went against public interests, but also bordered on something criminal.

Last Tuesday, the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport said that the Liberal government had learned from the mistakes made by the previous government. I am not so sure about that. There is something fishy about the government's refusal to get right to the bottom of this nebulous deal, but the government adds insult to injury by giving itself carte blanche to hand out very generous compensation to the loyal contributors to the war chests of the old political parties. The government, which not so long ago solemnly promised to abide by such principles as openness, integrity and sound management of public funds, was quick to turn its back on its pious wish and to revert to its old habits. As the old saying goes: what is bred in the bone will not out of the flesh.

By allowing big corporations to generously contribute to the parties' election coffers, the Canada Elections Act certainly does not help to restore the credibility of federal politicians and political parties. By refusing to change the legislative framework under which such a deal was made, the current Liberal government is asking the public to make another profession of faith and to believe that it is totally impervious to the financial and corporative interests supporting it and to the pressure coming from its good friends.

All of this disgraceful incident just goes to prove how crucial it is to act as soon as possible and pass an act concerning the financing of political parties, something similar to Quebec's current legislation. This would release federal political parties from any obligation to the big financial interests and make politicians accountable to those they are supposed to represent, that is the people of Canada.

The other major problem stems from the fact that the legislation concerning lobbyists is full of holes and does not define specifically enough the nature of lobbyists and the nature of their activities. The identification of the individuals who are subjected to pressures raises also serious ethical problems.

The Nixon Report speaks of dealings by members of the political staff who got too much involved in the transaction. It seems that lobbyists are directly responsible in the case of several officials who were reassigned and others who asked to be replaced. The promoters behind the privatization proposal knew very well that a future Liberal government would revoke the privatization contract, so they decided to take a risk. The government should not have to compensate for investors' miscalculations. The reform of the Lobbyists Registration Act would greatly contribute to prevent such muddle which, I must say, borders on something illegal.

I urge the present government to do its utmost to avoid making the same mistakes as the Conservatives. It was a mistake, for example, to entrust the airport management to private interests while everywhere else in Canada and in Quebec it was agreed that the best solution was to establish a non-profit group composed of local interests. It was also a mistake to deal with this issue without taking into account the will and the choices of the province concerned.

To conclude, I will join the opposition leader in asking for the establishment as soon as possible of an independant royal inquiry commission to get right to the bottom of this nebulous privatization deal so that never again organized and well-funded interests may influence the decision-making process in such a big way. This public inquiry could pave the way for the reform of the Lobbyists Registration Act. At the same time, it is imperative that the government amends the Election Act so that

Canadians begin again to trust their political institutions as well as politicians.

[Situation In Bosnia, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us what positions Canada took at the NATO summit in Brussels, particularly on the safety of Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia and could he tell us also what decisions were made at that summit meeting?

[Situation In Bosnia, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday, during the special debate on the situation in Bosnia, the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced that the government was supporting the United Nations' proposal for air strikes in order to protect the six safe areas designated by the UN in Bosnia following repeated violations of the various ceasefires by Bosnian Serb forces.

Can the Minister of Defence tell us exactly where things stand at this point in Gorazde and indicate if Russia approves of the UN Secretary-General's proposal for air strikes in Bosnia?

[Crown Liability And Proceedings Act, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act. Notwithstanding its vague and somewhat misleading title, this is a relatively simple bill. It refers to the so-called side agreements to the North American free trade agreement.

On March 15, in the debate on the Canadian foreign policy review process, I commented as follows, and I quote:

It is important to point out that this globalization is an inescapable phenomenon. It is a tendency which affects the economy of all countries, whether they are G-7 members or developing nations. To try to escape this reality would be like ignoring the emergence of new means of communication and production; in other words, it would be tantamount to ignoring the changes that have occurred in our economic environment.

I also stated the following:

-trade liberalization and market globalization seem to be a trend, an irreversible phenomenon. The prosperity of nations will depend more and more on international trade. It is a fact that will be part of Canada's economic reality from now on.

It is therefore not surprising that developments took us so quickly from the initial signing of the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States to the signing of the North American free trade agreement.

I was in Washington yesterday with several Canadian colleagues to meet members of the U.S. steel caucus and to discuss the need for our governments to provide formal recognition of the fact that the North American steel market is already well on its way to being integrated.

We also had an opportunity to meet representatives of the Canadian and U.S. steel industry who shared with us their concerns and expectations.

Representatives of the American Iron and Steel Institute, which includes most Canadian, American and Mexican steel mills, gave us, for our information, a press release published on July 8, 1992, in which the North American Steel Council, which is a member of the American Iron and Steel Institute, explained its position on NAFTA.

One paragraph of this press release was about the concerns shared by all members of the American Iron and Steel Institute, and I would like to read this very briefly, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

"On the interplay between the NAFTA and the environment the NASC's Canadian, Mexican and U.S. members share common concerns. We support continued parallel talks by our governments on environmental standards and enforcement levels, as well as on other so-called social issues as worker health and safety standards".

Reflecting the concerns shared by a substantial part of the U.S. public, U.S. President Bill Clinton made a commitment to negotiate and conclude side agreements on these two items before NAFTA was passed by Congress. After hasty negotiations, the three partners on September 14, 1993, signed two parallel agreements to NAFTA: the North American agreement on environmental co-operation between the governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico, and the North American agreement on labor co-operation, between the same three governments.

These side agreements gave rise to two new international institutions, namely the commission for environmental co-operation and the commission for labor co-operation.

Incidentally, several days ago, the government announced that the NAFTA commission for environmental co-operation would be established in Montreal. The English-language media and some other interested parties immediately criticized the government's choice, although it was quite logical and justified.

Need we repeat that Quebec is the only Canadian province which has promised to endorse the parallel accords on labour and the environment-but only, I wish to point out-after serious negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa?

The reasons that Quebec wants so much to be at the leading edge of international trade practices could not be more obvious: Quebec exports almost 16 per cent of its $160 billion GDP and these exports account for 30 per cent of our jobs. Furthermore, 76 per cent of Quebec's exports go to the United States.

Establishing the commission in a place that is hostile to its purpose would certainly not make for efficient operation. In addition, the government's choice is justified because Montreal is an international city which is already home to some 30 international organizations, including ICAO and IATA. The various levels of government have made great efforts to attract international organizations to Montreal.

Finally, Montreal is a cosmopolitan city which has the infrastructure needed for such organizations. It has a large English-speaking community and Spanish is increasingly spoken there every day by a rapidly growing Hispanic community.

For all these reasons and many more, Quebec's business community and politicians were right to lobby hard to have the commission for environmental co-operation located in Montreal.

That said, I do not intend to say any more on the commission for environmental co-operation and the commission for labor co-operation than Bill C-4 itself does.

To see what this bill is all about, it is first of all necessary to put it in perspective. It then becomes apparent that it partially meets some very worthy overall objectives, since it ultimately seeks to protect the rights of our working people as well as our natural sites and our environment.

As I said earlier, Bill C-4 seeks to make effective in Canada the provisions contained in the parallel accords concluded by the three NAFTA signatory countries on labour and the environment. As a document prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade for members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade says, these parallel accords encourage cooperation between Canada, the United States and Mexico on the environment and labour; commit the parties to promote compliance with and enforcement of their environmental and labour laws and regulations; and advocate higher standards in these two areas.

For at least two centuries, workers in Quebec and Canada have fought for laws to protect themselves from abuse by employers and governments. These struggles were hard and at times bitter. Nevertheless, workers succeeded in having their rights entrenched in laws which, in a sense, are now an integral part of life in Quebec and Canada; however, such is not the case in all countries. For social or historic reasons, workers' rights have not advanced at the same rate and in the same way everywhere.

Need we add that this is also true of the environment, where the gains made are even more fragile? Indeed, although the progress made in labour relations is fairly well established, this is certainly not true of environmental protection, where too often and even recently we have seen governments bow to the laws of the market, to the detriment of the laws of nature.

At any rate, at the 1992 earth summit, there was certainly no great show of unfailing willingness on the part of NAFTA partners to work together to solve their environmental problems. Under no circumstances must trade agreements between countries, however substantial they may be, adversely affect either the vested rights of our workers or our environment.

I am convinced however that certain fly-by-night businesses have tried to use the elimination of trade barriers to explain to their workers and the authorities the relaxation of labour and biophysical environment protection standards.

That is why the NAFTA side deals provide for mechanisms ultimately intended, on the one hand, to prevent businesses from taking advantage of legal differences between countries and, on the other hand, to force governments to maintain and enforce existing legislation and, ideally, encourage the various countries to pass legislation that is yet more progressive and stringent. Any downgrading of working conditions and labour standards will not be tolerated by the Bloc Quebecois, nor by the people of Quebec and Canada.

Of course, the temptation is there to restore a number of trade barriers or at least to adopt once again a negative attitude toward free trade as an easy way to solve the problem. And some provincial governments seem to like the idea. However, neither the current federal government nor the Bloc Quebecois, nor the government of Quebec for that matter, consider that approach to be realistic or beneficial.

For now, Bill C-4 appears to be a step toward the ultimate goal of preventing environmental and social "dumping" in cases where trading partners are on a very unequal footing in economic and legislative terms. Note that such an approach has created pitfalls that governments must avoid at all costs, but I will comment on that later on.

Bill C-4 enables a panel, an arbitration panel convened under article 24 of the environmental co-operation agreement or article 29 of the labor co-operation agreement to require either partner to effectively enforce its own environmental or labour laws.

Panel determinations will have the same status as an order of the Federal Court. As indicated in the explanatory notes, the enactment of Bill C-4 "amends the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act so as to permit domestic enforcement by the Federal Court of Canada of any panel determination that is addressed to the Crown in right of Canada", should the latter fail to enforce its environmental or labour legislation.

In other words, Bill C-4 is a step in the right direction in that it prevents the legislative gap between the three NAFTA signatories from widening further. If Canadian businesses decide to set up abroad, it will not be in hope of benefiting from some relaxation of environmental standards or of being able to exploit a poorly protected labour force. The contrary is also possible, but the chances of that happening are much slimmer, believe me.

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, the disparity between our three countries' social and environmental standards is in no way expected to increase as a result of such a measure. On the contrary, under article 3 of each side deal, the three signatory states agree to improve and strengthen existing legislation. In the event of non-compliance, the panel may assess the party in default, through an order of the Federal Court, a fine of up to $20 million US. The United States and Mexico could even have trade sanctions taken against them, while no such sanctions can be taken against Canada or any of its provinces under the agreement.

All in all, however, I would say that the positive aspects of this bill tend to eclipse the less positive ones. The first of these not-so-positive aspects of this middle-of-the-road solution that Canada has given its support to is no doubt the fact that the side deals have achieved no significant reduction in the observable legislative differences between the three NAFTA partners with respect to environment and labour.

This means that businesses could be tempted to take advantage of the fact that, in many cases, our trading partners' standards are more flexible than ours.

Admittedly, all parties expressed their willingness to improve their legislation, but this expression of faith, although noted in the agreement and seemingly sincere, is no guarantee whatsoever that positive changes will in fact occur.

Moreover, we are all becoming better acquainted with the legendary propensity of our neighbours to the South to turn to the courts at the slightest little thing. Following the signing of the free trade agreement, Canadians were surprised indeed to see the Americans rush to the trade tribunals, apparently to tie them up with business as quickly as possible. Since they have not been shy about doing so since the implementation of the free trade agreement, there is reason to think that they will adopt the same course of action, if at all possible, in the case of the NAFTA and its side agreements.

Therefore, it is vitally important that we make our partners understand that this kind of practice is totally unacceptable. Special groups that hand down binding decisions must not become, quite involuntarily at that, institutions at the service of one NAFTA partner or another.

Another of the problems caused by these side agreements has to do with the unique features of Canadian federalism. Regardless of what this centralist government may believe, labour and environment are largely areas of provincial jurisdiction.

While Ottawa disregarded Quebec's willingness to negotiate agreements in the case of the free trade agreement, it is hardly in a position here to take a similar approach in the case of side agreements. Discussions are in progress right now between federal and Quebec officials. According to the information we have received thus far, these discussions appear to be moving along well.

The same apparently cannot be said for the other provinces. From the very beginning, Ontario and British Columbia have made no secret of their opposition to all side agreements. To show its discontent, Ontario has threatened on several occasions to ask the Supreme Court to declare the government's actions in this matter unconstitutional.

Side agreements which for now apply only in areas of federal jurisdiction are not likely to apply to all provinces equally anytime soon.

If our partners did not understand the nature, or should I say the confused nature, of the Canadian federation, well now is certainly their chance to get a clearer picture of the situation. Although they have expressly stated that they would like the federal government to conclude agreements with the provinces, their wish does not seem to have been universally heard.

Regardless, Mr. Speaker, we will enthusiastically support this bill in view of the arguments presented and the underlying principles which gave rise to it.

[Foreign Affairs, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the UN asked NATO to stand ready to launch air strikes.

Can the minister indicate if Canada is actively participating in the development of a strategy for the Western countries and the UN, in order to respond to the intractability of the Bosnian Serbs who chose to further their cause with weapons instead of negotiations?

[Foreign Affairs, April 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The situation in Bosnia has seriously deteriorated. The UN has lost all control

and authority in the Moslem enclave of Gorazde, which has fallen to the Bosnian Serbs. Ignoring UN ultimatums and systematically violating ceasefire agreements, the Bosnian Serb army relentlessly pursues its attack on Gorazde despite that city's designation as a safe area by the UN.

Can the Minister of Foreign Affairs bring us up to date on the situation currently prevailing in Gorazde and confirm that the Bosnian Serbs' sustained attack has put an end to the peace process?

[Co-Operative Housing, April 14th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, on January 20 and 21 last, my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata and myself questioned the Minister of Canadian Heritage about the ever-present discrimination faced by Quebeckers in amateur sport in Canada.

Just days before the Olympic Games opened in Lillehammer, Hockey Team Canada still had not recruited a single player from Quebec. We deplored at the time that the team setting out to represent Canada in the Olympics in our national sport did not reflect more accurately the complex make-up of the Canadian society.

Shortly after the Official Opposition had raised this issue in the House of Commons, one player from Quebec was added in extremis to Team Canada's lineup. I think that the contemptuous attitude displayed at the time toward Quebeckers by Team Canada officials must be deplored. It is appalling and it was not

the first, nor the last, time this kind of thing happened, as we can well imagine.

In Canada, amateur sport is a real breeding ground of discrimination against Quebeckers, yet the minister seems to be indifferently washing his hands of the matter. In such instances, far from expressing our collective pride, sport breeds nothing but spite and injustice. What is the minister waiting for to realize there is a problem and to take steps to remedy the situation? Is he waiting for more cases of discrimination to occur in the amateur sport?

Let us take the case of Myriam Bédard, twice a gold medal winner, who was harassed and suspended by unilingual English-speaking bureaucrats of Biathlon Canada who threatened to throw her out of the national team of "her" country because she refused to obey unjust orders of a federation that wanted to break its sole star. Mr. Réjean Tremblay, reporter of the daily newspaper La Presse wrote an article on that.

There is also the case of the Quebecker figure skaters Paul and Isabelle Duchesnay, bronze medallists in dance at the Albertville Olympic Games, who were forced to wear the colours of France because of the intransigence of the Canadian Figure Skating Association.

Following the Lillehammer Games, Canada as a whole had to acknowledge and appreciate the merits of athletes from Quebec who had distinguished themselves by their talent but also by their tenacity and determination. And God knows they need a lot of tenacity and determination to overcome all the obstacles put on their way by the Canadian amateur sport system.

Nevertheless, nine of the thirteen Canadian medals were won by Quebec athletes. Is it not a clear illustration of a fundamental lesson of life, that one should not be afraid to forge ahead and have self-confidence?

One of the many problems in the amateur sport in Canada is that the distribution of powers between the national and provincial sports organizations makes the Quebec amateur sport system literally dependent on the Canadian system.

For sports events outside Canada, the selection of athletes, coaches, officials, volunteers and other sports professionals depends nearly exclusively on policies developed by the national sports associations with the result we know. Unilingual francophone athletes have an additional obstacle to overcome, in particular at the national selection stages since they cannot communicate in their own language with the coaches and people in charge of the selection and training of athletes who are unilingual anglophones in the majority of cases.

Sports professionals who are unilingual francophones face the same problem. They have less of a chance of getting a job in a Canadian sports organization.

In fact, as Sport Quebec was stressing in its submission to the Commission on the Political and Constitutional Future of Quebec, commonly known as the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, on November 2, 1986, and I quote: "Because it is directly related to Quebec's identity, the most fundamental problem is that the present system considerably limits the assertion of Quebec's policies in the field of sports, since all management is directly governed by the Canadian associations' policies".

That is another one of the many deep-rooted problems of Canadian federalism, a chronic inability to respond to Quebec's development conditions, an over-centralization aimed at imposing uniformity at all costs. I think that it is a failure, nothing less. Will the minister of Canadian Heritage finally realize that?