Mr. Speaker, I would like to let you know that I will share my time with my colleague from Terrebonne, who will join the debate in a moment. I understand that I will have ten minutes to make my point.
To start with, I will say that this morning, when I came back from Montreal, I turned on the parliamentary channel and watched the debate on the motion before us now. I was surprised to see that my Reform and Liberal friends were questioning the legitimacy of the motion we moved in this House today.
Some were claiming that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois was going to be the premier of Quebec, others that my colleague from Charlesbourg was basically guilty of insurgency. I could not help but remember why I was elected to Ottawa. It should not be forgotten that Quebecers pay $29 billion a year to Ottawa, and that in return they are entitled to services at an equivalent level.
With regard to today's debate, which in a sense is the history of the Canadian content requirement in defence spending, it should be noted that for decades Quebec has not been given its fair share by the defence department. For the past ten years, the shortfall has been $600 million a year.
I believe that as elected members from Quebec we have every right to move such a motion, which is perfectly legitimate, to boot. I had a look at statistics. We know that for a long time now the Saint-Jean area-and the Montreal area for that matter since Saint-Jean is part of the Montreal region-has been the victim of this kind of shortfall, which translates in terms of job loss.
I have the statistics right here. From 1990 to 1994, we lost 7,800 jobs out of a total of 13,900. I believe that in the current difficult context, these jobs would be very valuable.
In my own riding, we too are victims. I do not wish to belabour the point, but I will remind the Liberal Party of the terrible blow it dealt Saint-Jean when it closed the royal military college. This
represents a $32 million loss for our economy every year. Believe it or not, this college was the most efficient, which means that it was less expensive to train officer cadets in Saint-Jean than in Kingston or Royal Roads.
In spite of that, the Liberal government decided to close the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean. Thirty-two million dollars; it was the most efficient and the most bilingual military college.
We all know that the Canadian Parliament often boasts of its ideology and its policy on bilingualism. Pierre Elliott Trudeau himself, not the greatest advocate of Quebec I must admit, came in person to Saint-Jean and said that the college was the greatest proof that bilingualism could succeed. Nonetheless, in its last budget, the liberal party closed the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean.
Another inequity I would like to point out today is directly related to the debate and the issue at hand; I am talking about Oerlikon.
The Oerlikon case is another example of inequity towards Quebec and Saint-Jean. We all remember that the minister announced, August 16, that he was planning to award a two billion dollar contract to General Motors for the manufacture of armoured personnel carriers. At the time-I remember it well-the minister explained that the situation in London, Ontario was urgent. He said that they were almost out of contracts in London and that, since it was the centre of expertise for armoured vehicles, he had to award the contract to GM without any call for tenders. Why did the minister say that? Because it was also a centre of expertise. He said that no other plant in Canada could build better armoured vehicles than GM in Ontario.
Once again, the minister and the Liberal Party were forgetting Quebec.
The hon. member just mentioned the case of Oerlikon and I hope he is listening to me in the lobby. The Oerlikon situation is clearly unfair in this regard since out of the $2 billion contract for armoured personnel carriers about $500 to $600 million will be used for the gun turret. It happens that Oerlikon Canada is the centre of expertise for turrets in Canada.
Of course, General Motors said: "Listen, you are giving us a whole contract and you must understand that we have affiliates". Among others, there is one in Santa Barbara, called Delco, which is specialized in gun turrets. Therefore, GM seems to be saying: "You give us the $2 billion contract and we will subcontract to whoever we want". And as good capitalists and good business people, they give the subcontract to Delco of Santa Barbara, California. So you can see the impact of the department's decision on the Canadian content and on Quebec which, once again, is being excluded.
Canadian taxpayers are going to pay a $2 billion bill and almost half the money will be used to create jobs in the U.S., in Santa Barbara, California. I think this goes against the Liberal program which we all read so carefully during the election campaign and which said in English: "Jobs, jobs, jobs" and in French: "Emplois, emplois, emplois".
At the first opportunity it had, the government cut the jobs and sent them to California, saying to Canadian workers: "You pay your taxes to Ottawa and as for you, Quebecers, send $29 billion to Ottawa and you will get $600 million less".
We have here an opportunity to compensate for this shortfall for one year, since the contract is worth some $500 million to $600 million, but the Liberal Party is missing this opportunity. I find this totally deplorable because it shows a double standard.
If we recognize GM in London, Ontario as a centre of expertise for armoured vehicles, why do we not also recognize Oerlikon as the Canadian centre of expertise on turrets? We find this hard to explain. As a buyer, the government should use all the means at its disposal and ask General Motors in Ontario to have the turrets made by Oerlikon in Saint-Jean, the Canadian centre of expertise on turrets.
Lobby groups are at work. A number of people are trying to convince the federal government that my arguments are valid, but the government is not budging. Even the Bloc Quebecois has raised several questions on this issue, but all the minister can say is, "Submit your bids to GM and I might be able to talk to them, perhaps we will see if your bid is the best".
The federal government could even use this as an excuse to back out, because Oerlikon executives claim that they have sufficient expertise to carry out the contract for less than Delco in Santa Barbara. Although this would save Canadian taxpayers money, the minister continues to turn a deaf ear. I find this totally unacceptable.
If at least the minister said, "Look, Canadian content requirements have been reduced; they are no longer mandatory. So let us award the armoured personnel carrier contract to General Motors in London and call for bids on the turret contract in a way that is open and fair to everyone".
Even then, Oerlikon claims that it could do better than Delco any day. I visited the plant, and it is true that asking them to make turrets for armoured vehicles is like asking a Ferrari plant to build Volkswagens. They are perfectly capable of performing the task.
They are already producing Ferraris. The Ferrari of turrets are produced in Saint-Jean.
Now they want the Volkswagen turret to equip the new armoured vehicles to be sent elsewhere, claiming that General Motors was awarded the whole contract and that nothing more can be done because they do not want to interfere too much. They say: "Delco also makes them. Why meddle in this business. We just want to give the contract to GM and have nothing else to do with it". It think that this is utterly unfair to the Saint-Jean area and for Quebec as a whole.
Oerlikon has been lobbying extensively in the past little while. In fact, I think that the company's president is here, in Ottawa, today in a further attempt to make the government see reason. I also think that those involved were quite forceful, because perseverance did not get us anywhere so far. There are people who try, day in and day out, to get across to the department that the arguments I just mentioned are valid. Unfortunately, the federal government is apparently doomed because, any time it contemplates giving something to Quebec, it takes longer to make a decision than it normally does for any other part of Canada.
It certainly did not take the minister very long to decide to award the contract to GM. In no time flat, he decided: "I must help GM. It is a centre of excellence and short of contracts." As far as Saint-Jean and Quebec are concerned, that is another story.
That is why I take this opportunity today to try to show, once again, that this is unfair and that it is no too late to make it right. I ask the Liberal government and all my government colleagues to impress on the minister responsible that Canadian taxpayers, and indirectly, Quebec taxpayers, stand to save money. The minister should take his responsibilities and give Oerlikon the same consideration he gave GM when awarding GM the contract. We are dealing with two centers of expertise and potential savings to the taxpayers.