Debates of Oct. 24th, 1996

Supply

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in his question and comments the hon. member requires that I repeat a couple of the things I said in my speech. If he wants to stand in this House and say through the television cameras to the people of Quebec and to the people of Montreal that the political climate and the political instability brought to that province through of the pursuit of the sovereignty option has absolutely no impact on the economy of Quebec, then he can say that. There is not an economist, not a reasonable person in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada or the world that believes that.

If the hon. member is going to suggest to me that the political climate in Quebec is conducive to economic activity, he is just plain wrong because it is not. In order to have an economy grow, move forward and create jobs it needs to have political stability.

The member forgets something else. Economies operate within a market system. They are not dictated simply by what the provincial government in Quebec City does. They are not simply affected by what a federal government might do in Ottawa. They are dictated in this country in large part by the markets within which we operate. Those markets are affected by external factors.

One of those factors is the political stability within which that market operates. Until that political stability is brought into line, until that sovereignty option is put aside and the concentration is on the economy in Quebec there will continue to be economic problems in that part of this country.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by describing the principles of the Department of Public Works and Government Services' procurement process. It will make it obvious that the member for Roberval's motion is unsubstantiated. It will also make it clear that as the federal government's main contracting arm and the largest purchasing organization in Canada, the Department of Public Works and Government Services is committed to-I want to say this with all clarity-an open, fair and competitive procurement process that respects its commitments under international and national trade agreements.

The department annually issues 80,000 contracts worth almost $8 billion through a procurement process that is transparent, fair and open. The fairness and integrity of the process is rarely challenged.

In its day to day operations, openness, fairness and competition are the guiding principles for how the department does business with suppliers and contractors. Its approach is a very practical and visible example of the government's commitment to governing with integrity.

One might ask how this is done. First, the department competes contracts. In other words, bids are invited on a competitive basis and contracts are let on a competitive basis. It does not allocate them on a share basis to particular regions. Second, the department provides fair access to government business through open and competitive bidding opportunities. Third, its procurement policies ensure equal and fair access to competitive bidding opportunities for potential suppliers from all regions of Canada.

I have a few words about contracting statistics and why they are not a reliable indicator of economic benefit. The contracting statistics produced by the Department of Public Works and Government Services reflect the billing address of suppliers. However, it is clear that a supplier's address does not necessarily reflect economic activity.

For example, large national oil firms are likely to process all federal sales through an Ottawa mailing address but we all know there is no oil production or refining here in Ottawa. There are many examples of this nature which is why it is futile to examine contracting statistics as a means of evaluating economic benefits.

It is accurate to say that procurement is probably the most scrutinized activity of government. It is scrutinized not only by Parliament but also by Treasury Board, the Auditor General of Canada, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, disappointed suppliers, the news media and taxpayers.

I assure the House that the Department of Public Works and Government Services' procurement system operates with the highest level of integrity. I emphasize that within the department, great efforts are always made to ensure that the procurement system is a transparent one and that we are accountable for our decisions. Important illustrations of this are open bidding, our supplier promotion program and the bid challenge mechanism offered by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.

Open bidding is the key to helping Canadian firms do business with the Government of Canada. Open bidding opens up the purchasing needs of federal departments and agencies to suppliers that then decide for which requirements they want to compete. I emphasize that the decision on whether to compete or not rests with suppliers.

At the heart of open bidding is the open bidding service, often referred to as OBS, an electronic bulletin board that publicly advertises bidding opportunities for suppliers. The OBS is accessible with a personal computer and modem from anywhere in Canada. Users can log on a DOS or Windows basis and via the Internet. This information is also available in paper format in a publication called "Government Business Opportunities" for those suppliers without computers.

Equal access to business opportunities is one of the guiding principles of Department of Public Works and Government Services' open bidding system. The system is open to all Canadian firms, large or small, 24 hours a day and it operates in both official languages. The department is continually striving to improve the service. In fact, it views the open bidding service very much as a work in progress, one that has come a long way since it was introduced in 1989.

Today more than 27,000 subscribers use the OBS to obtain consistent, timely information on federal government and other public procurement opportunities. A recent OBS subscriber survey shows that 90 per cent of subscribers rate the service as good or very good which tells me that the people using the system like it.

The OBS is just one of the ways in which we are working to make the procurement system as accessible, fair and effective as possible for all Canadian businesses.

I should also emphasize that promoting competition, providing greater access to business and ensuring fairness in public sector procurement opportunities are the principles at the heart of this country's agreement on internal trade which has been signed by all provinces, including Quebec, and the two territories.

The key part of the agreement on internal trade deals with improvements to government procurement. These improvements commit all 10 provinces and the two territories not to discriminate on the basis of province of origin or nature of business.

I trust that I have been able to make clear that the notion of a regional fair share of federal procurement is a misguided one. That is not the way we operate. That said, we recognize the important role that procurement plays in creating jobs and growth here in Canada. Wherever feasible, within the confines of agreements such as the World Trade Organization agreement and NAFTA, regional benefits are given a high priority when evaluating bids for major government projects.

Assisting Canadian suppliers large and small to do business with the federal government is a key activity in the Department of Public Works and Government Services. The main tool used to accomplish this is the supplier promotion program. Each year this program holds seminars in all parts of Canada giving participants practical pointers on marketing to the government and putting them in touch with key departmental contacts. Last year 170 seminars were held throughout the country.

In addition, the supplier promotion program has fax sheets available, written in plain, clear language on a variety of topics including the open bidding service, free trade and much more. A booklet called "Your Guide to doing Business with PWGSC" is also available. The booklet provides basic information on doing business with the department. Today this wealth of information and a list of upcoming seminars is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week to anyone with Internet access.

Let me return again to the principle of integrity. As well as being a cornerstone of how the government operates, integrity in procurement is also a reflection of the international marketplace. Our international trade obligations require that our government procurement practices and transactions be fair and be seen to be fair. There must be equal access to information about procurement opportunities, clear rules on how the process is conducted and there must be an independent appeal mechanism for suppliers seeking redress.

The Canadian International Trade Tribunal, known as CITT, is Canada's third party appeal mechanism established to hear complaints from suppliers who believe that they have not been treated fairly during any stage of the procurement process for federal government requirements.

The CITT has the right to issue subpoenas and to make awards to suppliers in cases where a supplier's complaint is validated by the CITT. It is interesting to note that of the 80,000 contracts the Department of Public Works and Government Services awarded in 1995-96, the CITT only received complaints on 37 of these procurements and of these, only three were upheld as valid complaints by the tribunal. I think that is a pretty darn good record. On that note, I end.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is a very fine and articulate theory but what about practice?

Here is practice, and my question to the member opposite will be based on it. Last year, the Canadian government signed a contract for armoured vehicles worth $2 billion, that is $2,000 million. This is not peanuts. This very big contract was awarded without a call for tenders to, naturally, an Ontario manufacturing industry, which in turn subcontracted the turrets to a California company for $500 to $600 million, still without a call for tenders.

I know that in Saint-Jean, on the outskirts of Montreal, Oerlikon, which specializes in this type of equipment, could have fulfilled this contract at a competitive price, since there was no call for tenders. But it was not to be.

My question for the member opposite is this: Why did we choose to give our own taxpayers' money to workers in California rather than to workers on the outskirts of Montreal?

I want a concrete answer, not only rhetoric.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Winnipeg—St. James, MB]

Madam Speaker, I know that the hon. member from the province of Quebec is trying to leave the inference with us that contractors, companies and all the people of Quebec are somehow being shafted. They have used that story over and over again but I can say that in this House of Parliament it does not work.

The record stands for itself. Quebec companies are doing very well. In my opinion the member and all members of the Bloc cast a slur on companies in Quebec every time they stand up and complain. These companies have strong leadership. Their executives are good, their workers are very strong and they compete very well. Looking at the record, we see that Quebec companies are doing quite well. Let me go down a short list.

SNC Incorporated of Montreal. Everybody knows about that company. Right now it is supplying the Government of Canada with munitions. That contract is worth $140 million. Another company is Allied Signal Aerospace Canada. It has a contract for $20 million to supply systems for light armoured vehicles. SHL Systemhouse Inc. has a contract to supply the Canadian Armed Forces with a computer program to control supply systems. That contract is worth $30 million.

There is a long list but I will give one more example. Textron Canada Limited of Mirabel is supplying 100 helicopters to the Department of National Defence and the benefits to Quebec are $400 million.

Those members complain, yell and shout that somehow the province is let out. Do you know what? Yes, the economy is not as strong as it should be in Quebec. In fact, it is not as strong as it should be right across the country but if those people would stop hollering, if they would stop contributing to political instability in this country and especially in the province of Quebec, their companies would do even better.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased this morning to take part in this debate, which the Bloc Quebecois considers a fundamental debate.

When one looks at the decline of Montreal, when one sees all the hopes that were dashed these past few years, one can understand all the frustration not only on our part but on the part of our fellow citizens at the government's inaction.

I listened earlier to the hon. member for Outremont and Secretary of State responsible for the Federal Office of Regional

Development-Quebec. I listened to his arguments and I do not question his good will in the least.

However, I do question the good will and good faith of some of his colleagues, in particular the Prime Minister of Canada who came to Montreal to bemoan the decline of the city in front of the Montreal board of trade and talked about almost everything but the real issues and the joint actions needed to successfully counteract this decline.

When I look at all the decisions his government has made in the last three years, I do not question the good faith or good will of the hon. member for Outremont. But I do question the good will and good faith of the Prime minister and his colleagues and, in particular, the Toronto establishment. I need only look, for example, at what was done to Air Canada these past few months. Decisions were made that ran counter to maintaining jobs in Montreal, which put at risk the very existence of Air Canada's head office in Montreal with its 1,200 employees. I need only look at what is being done in shipping, where the St. Lawrence ports are completely disadvantaged. I need only look at the government's decisions, and I will consider only the Laval information technology research center, where the federal government has cut $10 million and 80 high quality jobs. I need only look at the closure of the Saint-Hubert Land Force Command, causing the loss of 480 jobs in metropolitan Montreal.

I need only look at what happened to Atomic Energy of Canada's Tokamak project in Varennes, where 20 per cent of the employees were transferred to Toronto. And when I hear the Prime Minister say that he will do everything he can to save Montreal, I doubt it. I doubt that the Prime Minister is capable of anything except saying that he will act, without ever putting his words into actions.

I need only look only at the project of creating a Canada-wide securities commission to have my doubts about whether the Prime Minister and greater Toronto members in particular are working for Montreal. Why? Because do you know what the establishment of such a Canada-wide commission would mean for Montreal? It would certainly mean the transfer of a major part of Montreal's financial activities, of its infrastructures and superstructures in the securities sector. This means a transfer of the decision making process, of the financial sector's resources from Montreal to Toronto. This is quite clear. It is so clear that it has nothing to do with the fact of being sovereignist or against the government.

There are even some good Liberals who have been saying for years to the federal government that it must not interfere with the securities sector and, above all, that it must not create new institutions like a Canadian securities commission that would make decisions leading to a transfer in Toronto of almost all of Montreal's financial sector, including tax experts, securities experts and the whole securities network.

If the government really wants to save Montreal, create jobs and strengthen economic activity, it cannot create a Canadian securities commission that would siphon off all of Montreal's financial sector or large portions of it toward Toronto.

How do you expect us to believe the Prime Minister when he says that he will help Montreal to recover? Do you really expect us to believe in his goodwill when it is clear that he will take deliberate measures to make Montreal lose all of its securities sector and a good part of its financial sector?

How do you expect to reinforce economic activity if you move it to Toronto?

So, as I was saying, I do not question in any way the good faith of the member for Outremont, but I certainly may question the good faith of his government and especially the capacity of the members from Quebec who sit on the other side to stand up to the establishment in Toronto, to stand up to the backers of the Liberal Party of Canada, who are concentrated mostly in Toronto, and to stand up to the lobbying by the Ontario financial community, which wants to have this Canada-wide securities commission. And do you know why they want that? Because, from now on, Toronto will be the heart of the financial sector and the securities sector.

Not so long ago, Daniel Johnson was premier of Quebec. It was another era. Lots of things have happened since then. But when he was premier, he had deemed appropriate to write to the then President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs, the member for Hull-Aylmer.

Allow me to quote what Daniel Johnson said about the federal government's interference in the securities sector. He said: "Perhaps I may remind you first of all that the Government of Quebec has never supported an expanded federal role in the securities sector, which is the exclusive responsibility of the provinces". That is not us talking, but Daniel Johnson, a good Liberal.

He goes on to say: "In the five-year report she tabled in the National Assembly last December, the finance minister reiterated Quebec's concerns about the federal regulations regarding the securities sector, which would be part of this legislation. She stressed that federal regulations would be inappropriate, both constitutionally and from the point of view of efficiency".

I do not often agree with Mr. Johnson, but on this issue we are in total agreement. In fact, a broad consensus exists in Quebec. At the end of last spring, the Quebec government's committee on employment and the economy held hearings regarding the financial sector, more specifically the securities sector.

All the stakeholders who appeared before the committte unanimously criticized the federal government's interference in this sector and the creation of a Canada-wide securities commission. Federalists and sovereignists alike were unanimous on that point. Political stripes are never important in Quebec when the issue is saving and creating jobs, maintaining activities as important as the securities sector and decision centres in Montreal. Everyone in Quebec is opposed to this government proposal.

Therefore, they should stop bemoaning the situation in Montreal. They should put aside this ill conceived proposal, which verges on madness, especially when one speaks from both sides of one's mouth. One cannot save or help Montreal, on the one hand, and kill whole sectors of the financial industry, on the other hand.

I suggest to the hon. member for Outremont, who is the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec, that he try to convince his colleagues, especially those from Toronto, to overturn the decisions and reject the policies of the Prime Minister and the finance minister in this regard. Once he has done that, I will be even more convinced of his good faith than I am today.

I have one last comment. I see that the member for Outremont is anxious to answer, and I am anxious to hear what he has to say, to hear that he will commit himself to working to have this decision overturned. Nevertheless, I would ask the following question: Where are the other members from Quebec today? We are talking about Montreal and saving Montreal. A single member from Quebec is here, and he is the minister responsible for the regional development. This is outrageous.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec)]

Madam Speaker, first of all I must thank my hon. colleague, for whom I have great respect, for his show of confidence. I would just like to point out that, notwithstanding the trust put in me, when in the same breath the will and the good will of the Prime Minister of Canada is put into question, it is also my own will and good will that is being put into question.

In that sense, I must say that the Canadian government's policy in the Montreal strategy is a noble one in that it acts on a serious situation.

I describe the situation as serious because there are more poor people in greater Montreal alone than in all of Atlantic Canada. When a government with a national vision wants to ensure that the country has a dynamic economy, is able to export and can be competitive-as I said this morning-it has to make sure that large urban centers throughout Canada have a dynamic economy. It is our duty to remain active, and I emphasize remain, because we were already active and will continue to be active in the Montreal area.

What we are asking official opposition members is basically to heighten the awareness of their colleagues in the Quebec government so that they work in partnership with us, a partnership already endorsed to a very large extent by city officials in Montreal.

I shall be brief, Madam Speaker. The issue of transportation was raised earlier, and many aspects were listed. Someone mentioned for instance that, on June 6, 1996, Via Rail Canada announced its was consolidating all its operations in the greater Montreal area. That is quite something.

Regarding the Canadian Securities Commission, I respectfully submit that it is wishful thinking on the part of my hon. colleague to say that Quebec will be swallowed up and will have to join in. In establishing a Canadian Securities Commission, my colleague, the Minister of Finance, is essentially acting on a request made by a number of provinces across Canada. With this structure in place, Quebec will not be required to join in. Its jurisdiction will in no way be affected.

I think criticism can be good, but it must be constructive criticism. Now that we have made quite extensively clear the will to act and plan of action of the government and the Prime Minister of Canada, I urge them to join in and fall into step.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I thank the hon. member for Outremont and minister in charge of regional development. But if he really wants to work, I urge him to show his unflagging faith in Montreal's future and to publicly undertake to oppose the project for a Canada-wide securities commission.

The answer he gave when he quoted the Minister of Finance is far from satisfactory, and I will tell him that no Quebecer believes in that statement from the Minister of Finance that, if Quebec refuses to participate in the activities of the Canada-wide securities commission, the Quebec Securities Commission will remain, and there will be two commissions.

Nobody believes that, for two reasons. First, when there is a securities commission for all of Canada, a national commission, it takes precedence over all of the others. Financial circles will turn to the Canada-wide securities commission, which will probably be established in Toronto, because all this government's financial decisions revolve around Toronto. Second, the government wishes to increase efficiency, yet it will agree to maintain provincial securities commissions in addition to a national commission. This is absolutely inefficient and not in the interest of the financial circles, which are looking for stability and certainty.

[Benoît Tremblay, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

As you know, Madam Speaker, a large centre like Montreal does not change overnight, or even in a year. We are currently experiencing the consequences of decisions made in the last few decades. Similarly, our children's lives will be largely influenced by the decisions we make today. In order to understand Montreal's situation, we have to put things in

perspective. When we have convictions, it is because we put things in perspective.

It is no accident that we are convinced today that Montreal is a metropolis in need of a country, of a capital that cares for its metropolis.

Montreal was once a city and a region whose population was primarily anglophone. At that time, the anglophones were the masters and we were their servants. There was the affluent Montreal and the poor Montreal. Poverty had a language, ours.

Things have changed. Today, Montreal is a primarily a francophone city, and I hope it will be so forever. But, things have also changed politically. Montreal was once the metropolis of Canada. Today, political Canada has chosen its metropolis, Toronto. This is largely due to a series of decisions made by the federal government.

Montreal is the metropolis of Quebec and it can clearly be demonstrated that its major problem is that most of the decisions affecting it are still made in a capital which has another metropolis. This is the major problem Montreal faces.

When the Prime Minister of Canada came to Montreal to tell us that we, the sovereignists, are the ones responsible for the uncertainty and suggested that this uncertainty is responsible for the decline of Montreal, he just wanted us to forget about our ideals and, why not our language while we were at it, and to concern ourselves with concrete things.

I accept the challenge, but only for a few minutes, while I examine the concrete decisions that the federal government has taken in the last few years in areas under its jurisdiction.

The Prime Minister presents himself as the reassuring buddy, and us as the uncertainty. Let us look at each individual issue. In something that is exclusively under federal jurisdiction, the rail industry, I would like to ask the 15,000 workers who lost their jobs in the last years in Montreal if they are reassured by the federal government's decisions. I would like to ask them who is responsible for the uncertainty they have to live with now.

I would like to ask the 8,000 workers of the shipbuilding industry, who lost their jobs as a result of federal decisions, if they are reassured by the Prime Minister's statement. Do they still want the federal government to take care of them?

I ask the same thing to the thousands of workers of Montreal's petrochemical industry, who lost their jobs to Sarnia, Ontario, following a federal decision to draw an artificial line down the Ottawa Valley known as the Borden Line. This decision allowed petrochemical development to take place in Ontario while this industry declined in Montreal. All Montreal's workers know that those who are responsible for their uncertainty are not the sovereignists.

The attitude of the federal Liberal government was similar in other sectors. I need only think of civil aviation and the pharmaceutical industry. Let us ask managers and workers of the pharmaceutical industry if the federal decision power concerning patents is reassuring for them.

During over 20 years, Canada was the only western country to deny real patents to a research industry that was well settled in Montreal. When the Conservative government wanted to change the legislation and give real patents to this industry, the whole region had to rally for months instead of putting its energies into its own development. We constantly have to put a lot of energy into bringing the federal government to make positive decisions.

Who delayed the bill? Not the Conservative government, but the Liberal Senate, during several months, in Toronto's pay. Let the Secretary of State for Regional Development answer that. The federal government's attitude toward the pharmaceutical industry could change.

We are asked to make concrete proposals. What we want are basic decisions for Montreal's economy, not an announcement to the effect that some funding will be provided. In order to dispel the uncertainty concerning Montreal and drug patents, it must clearly be stated that the drug patent legislation will be amended by 1997. The government must pledge that the pharmaceutical industry will be able to get patents similar to those available everywhere in the western world. If this is done, investments will increase in Montreal.

Let me say to those who are listening to us that fundamental changes have occurred over the years and will continue to occur. The most important of these changes is the presence, in Ottawa, of the Bloc Quebecois. The days when federal ministers, or even the Prime Minister, could secretly make basic decisions that were unfavourable to Quebec's economy and then try to look good by announcing some subsidy are over. These days are over.

We do not want the government to announce some subsidy; we want it to make basic decisions regarding Montreal's economy. Here is another suggestion. The Sarnia industry, which was developed at the expense of Montreal's petrochemical industry, is now asking that the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline go the other way. My suggestion would not cost one penny to the government. The government only has to demand that these multinationals revitalize Montreal's petrochemical industry, in exchange for the service. They would then contribute to Montreal's development.

What is needed for that? No money is necessary. We know that governments do not have any money and when they do, it comes from our pockets. But political will is necessary. The two suggestions I am making would not cost a thing; they only require political will. We will be watching to see if this political will is there. If it is not, the Liberal government will have to pay the price. Put an end to economic uncertainty.

I want to ensure the Prime Minister that we are still part of Canada. The No side won the last referendum by a very narrow margin. Quebec pays $30 billion to be part of Canada; it is a rather high contribution. We are here to protect the interests of Quebec and to demand that these $30 billion be used.

I also want to tell him that we will keep our ideals. We will keep our will to develop our identity, and the Bloc Quebecois will continue to promote sovereignty and Quebec's interests in Ottawa, until the fundamental decision on our future is made. We are not prepared to give up our ideals for a subsidy.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Secretary of State (Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec)]

Madam Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of patience to the remarks of the hon. member for Rosemont. When I listen to him, I get the impression we do not live in the same metropolitan area.

When people opposite say that what is expected from the government are fundamental decisions and concrete projects, I wonder where they have been for the last 20 to 30 years, when the federal government has been building the modern economy of Quebec, when it has been contributing to that as a partner.

I wonder also where members opposite have been for the past few months when we have been taking action everywhere in the country, particularly in the Greater Montreal area. One needs to have a vision in order to make fundamental decisions. The Prime Minister of Canada stated our government's vision this week before the chamber of commerce, and I have explained it again this morning.

Each and every action we take, based on this vision, from the most modest ones to the most significant, have been fundamental actions. The most modest ones have been important for small businesses. Take for example the Info-entrepreneurs centre in Montreal which has a resounding success in the business community because it is filling a need.

Another example is the Centre d'entreprise et d'innovation of Montreal which has just changed its focus. Members opposite say we are talking peanuts. These thing are important. The Centre d'entreprise et d'innovation has just changed its focus in order to help small businesses more, and young people who want to start their own business in the new economy.

There have been other federal contributions and more structuring projects, like Bell Helicopter, in which Quebec and Canada take great pride. Just think of the latest announcement. They were talking about peanuts a while ago. But Bombardier-Canadair will be producing a new regional 70-passenger jet aircraft, and the Quebec aerospace industry will keep its enviable position on international markets.

This morning, I spoke about the leading edge in the space industry. The Canadian Space Agency in Saint-Hubert is part of the aerospace industry, and it has a ten-year plan representing $2.3 billion.

These are fundamental and concrete projects. This is what it means to act in a structuring manner and, most of all, with a vision.

In concluding, I will get back to an issue. If my hon. colleagues opposite want to put their shoulders to the wheel and work constructively within the framework of the strategy we have developed, we will be pleased to take all their remarks, provided they are made in the spirit of that vision and that strategy. However, they already have elements in their hands. They can surely talk to their colleagues in Quebec City about the sword of Damocles the Prime Minister was talking about, and also about the areas under their jurisdiction, like education, to use them to adequately respond to the needs of our population and the needs of our young people. They could also talk to some people who are in charge in the metropolis, so that we move forward in a partner like manner.

[Benoît Tremblay, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to see how impatient the minister gets when we remind him of the Liberal government's decisions concerning the rail system, shipping, civil aviation, the pharmaceutical industry and the petro-chemical industry.

The people who are watching this are no fools. Of course, a corporation was granted a subsidy recently. However, I questioned the minister about two decisions. If he had listened to me the first time, he would have been able to give me an answer. I put two questions to him. It would not cost a penny, at a time when millions of dollars are given away, while hospital budgets and unemployment benefits are cut. I put two questions to the minister and he did not answer either one of them. These two decisions are political and would not cost a penny. What do you intend to do about the drug patents and about the pipeline to revitalize the petro-chemical industry in Montreal?

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.

My remarks will deal with the Montreal port, a major element not only in this country's shipping industry but also in intermodal tranportation and international trade.

The Montreal Port Corporation was created in 1983 by the federal government as a local port corporation, under the Canada Ports Corporation Act. In keeping with the national shipping policy, this port has been designated a Canadian port authority.

Our government's national shipping policy will ensure that the Canadian shipping industry continues to contribute significantly to the Montreal economy, by allowing the port to become even more commercially orientated.

Montreal is one of the busiest inland ports in the world and one of the main transatlantic traffic transfer centres. With its port, its international airport, its road and railway networks linking it to every corner of North America, Montreal is undeniably one of the hubs of transportation in the world.

Every year, the Montreal port contributes $1.2 billion to the economy of Montreal, Quebec and the country as a whole. It accounts for 7,400 direct jobs which, coupled with indirect jobs, amount to 14,000 jobs.

These economic benefits are more obvious with regard to the North Atlantic ocean. Of all the eastern seaboard ports, Montreal provides the most direct and fastest access to the main Canadian markets, as well as to American markets in the Midwest and the North East.

This is where transatlantic routes interconnect with the rail and freeway networks thus reducing the time and cost of door to door transportation of goods. Traffic back and forth is so important that it promotes economies of scale and allows shipping lines to offer regular and frequent services. Importers and exporters can fully profit from all the advantages of just in time delivery.

The Montreal Port Corporation is financially independent. Between 1984 and 1995, it generated total net profits amounting to $148.4 million. During that time, thanks to internally generated funds, the corporation invested $180 million in capital expenditures.

In 1987, the Government of Canada approved a transfer to the equity of the Montreal Port Corporation in the amount of $231 million, comprising $133 million in annuity certificates and $98 million in accrued interests on those certificates.

Therefore, between 1986 and 1995, the government wrote off part of the debt and accrued interests for a total of $231 million and the Montreal Port Corporation contributed $108.7 million to the consolidated fund of Canada in the form of a special contribution and dividends, so the net result was a positive difference of $122.3 million.

In 1995, the Montreal Port Corporation paid six million in grants in lieu of municipal taxes. On the other hand, tenants of the port paid directly $7.7 million in property, municipal and school taxes. Therefore, in 1995, the Montreal Port Corporation and its tenants jointly paid $13.7 million in grants in lieu of taxes, municipal taxes and school taxes.

Given those data and the economic impact of the port activity, we can conclude that not only is the port not a burden for the Canadian taxpayer, it is a real motor for the Canadian economy.

In the Montreal Port Corporation's business plan, investments or capital expenditures of almost $110 million are expected for the five-year period from 1996 to 2000.

With containers on top of the list, the total traffic of goods handled in the port of Montreal during the first six months of 1996 reached 9.3 million tonnes, an increase of 1.3 million tonnes or 16 per cent compared to the same period last year. There was a traffic increase in all categories of goods, except one.

During the first semester of 1996, the port of Montreal handled 3.9 million tonnes of various containerized goods, an increase of more than 570,000 tonnes or 17.2 per cent compared to the first six months of last year. We must recall that, for the whole of the year 1995, container traffic had reached an unprecedented level in the main Canadian container port, despite a labour dispute that paralysed activities on the wharves for 16 days last year.

For the first half of 1996, the port of Montreal has increased its share of the container market in a context of fierce competition. It has succeeded to fare better than its competitors on the North American east coast, and there is every indication it will be another record year in this sector.

The growth in freight traffic combined with tight control of administrative and operating costs had a positive impact on the Montreal Port Corporation's financial performance. As of June 30, 1996, the corporation's net profits amounted to $3.6 million compared to $1.1 million for the first half of 1995.

All user fees have been frozen for the fourth consecutive year. Additional improvements were made to the discount program put in place to stimulate container traffic, and rebates aimed at increasing other types of freight have been added.

A highlight of the first half of 1996 was the arrival of three brand-new containerships linking Montreal to northern Europe. Two of these three ships were christened in Montreal. Canada Maritime's Canmar Courage and Canmar Fortune each have a capacity of 2,200 TEU containers, while OOCL Canada, which

belongs to Orient Overseas Container Line, can carry 2,300 TEU containers.

These three deep-draft ships are currently the largest containerships sailing on the St. Lawrence. They are on the leading edge of technology and equipped for winter sailing. The commissioning of these three great vessels is further evidence of shipowners' confidence in the Port of Montreal's future.

The highlights of the first semester include improved carrier services between North America's industrial heartland and northern Europe and the Mediterranean, as well as the opening of a new fruit terminal operated by Logistec Arrimage Inc.

This shows the positive economic impact of port operations in the Montreal area on all trade activities linked to shipping.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to what the hon. member opposite just said. In a way, he just sang the praises of the port of Montreal. The fact is that Montreal did do rather well after all. I say after all on account of the statistics referred to earlier by the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie, data from our revered Statistics Canada indicating that for every dollar it pays in taxes to the federal government, here, in Ottawa, Montreal gets only 75 cents back. All in all, Montreal did quite well on its three quarters out of a buck. But how much more would Montreal have been able to accomplish with that last quarter? That is the real question. You see, for decades now, the problem has not taken the form of sword of Damocles dangling over our heads, but rather that of a ball and chain that we have to drag behind us all the time and that keeps getting heavier and heavier every time we send money to Ottawa. We keep getting less and less back and end up getting shortchanged.

I notice that the majority of government members standing up are not from the Montreal area. Where are the hon. members for Pierrefonds, Saint-Laurent, Verdun? I am not saying that they are not in the House-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I recognize the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas on a point of order.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, members may be tempted from time to time to comment on the presence or absence of other members, but I do not think that this serves the important and very sensitive debate we are having today on the Montreal area.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Madam Speaker, why are the members I just mentioned not standing up in this House at this time? I would like to hear from them. After all, they have the right to represent the views of their fellow citizens from the Montreal area. I am sure that they would have something to say on the subject. Why are we not hearing from them?

I would like my hon. colleague opposite, who made such complimentary remarks about the port of Montreal, to tell me why. Once the bill the House is currently considering, the one that will charge user fees for navigational aids is passed-I hope it will not but, unfortunately, the government majority holds the opposite view-when it is in force, resulting in the St. Lawrence seaway becoming less competitive in the eyes of a number of American carriers, what will happen to the port of Montreal then? Is Quebec, and Montreal and its port in particular, not at the mercy of yet another bad decision made by a centralizing government in Ottawa?

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I am pleased to inform him that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who is from Montreal. That should make him happy.

Furthermore, what I said in my speech clearly shows that the Port of Montreal is doing very well. The hon. member asks me questions as if I could forecast the future, as if I knew what will happen after a certain bill becomes law. He has no arguments to refute what I said in my speech, that the Port of Montreal is doing fine, better than last year, despite all the cuts made across the country, and not only at the Port of Montreal.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That any recorded division on the opposition motion now before the House be deemed deferred until Tuesday, October 29, 1996, at the conclusion of Government Orders.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Does the hon. government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce in Montreal and a fifth generation Montrealer who loves his city, loves his province and his country, I take this debate very seriously.

The separatists in all their forms, whether sovereignists or Parti Quebecois or Bloc Quebecois or Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste, continue to bury their heads in the sand. They refuse to face the

reality that their policies are seriously hurting the economy of Montreal. They are hurting the recovery of Montreal as one of the world's great cities.

They refuse to recognize that their policies to hold continual referendums, to make statements with respect to exclusivity as to who is really a Quebecois, and from time to time their extreme language policies are scaring away jobs and new investment. Obviously not all investment; there is investment in Montreal, but there could be much more without these negative policies which I have just referred to.

It is true that Montreal suffers the same problems as all other smokestack industrial cities, the old industrial cities: the need to convert to the new economy, the need to convert to high technology and to globalization. We can debate on another occasion the effectiveness of these policies by the government to help all Canadian industrial and commercial cities that are faced with those same challenges.

In addition to suffering the same difficulties as other North American cities and cities in Europe that are trying to adapt to the new economy, Montreal is hit with the additional burden of continual referendums, extreme nationalism and extreme language policies.

The Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois talk about democracy and self-determination and the respect for democracy and self-determination, but they refuse to recognize the results of two referendums which have already been held. Their policy seems to be to continue to have referendums until they win one, no matter what kind of question and no matter by what margin. They refuse to recognize the rule of law. They say that they will not recognize decisions of the supreme court with respect to the universal declaration of independence issues.

Do such policies encourage employers to come and stay in Montreal? I would think not. Consider their statements as to who is and who is not a Quebecois. One day we hear them speak of the Quebecois in a very exclusive fashion, as if only those who are descendants of vieille souche Quebecois are really Quebecois, which results in two types of citizenship in Quebec.

On another day, in a more reflective mood they will say that I am included, the Blacks are included, the Indians are included, everyone else is included. But then we had statements in this House by one member of the Bloc Quebecois who suggested seriously that only those who fit his definition of Quebecois should have the right to vote in the referendum. By that he meant the descendants of the vieille souche Quebecois.

I hear this again. I hear "nous Québécois avons besoin de notre état". When they say "nous Quebecois" they do not include me and many of my electors in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. They are speaking of an exclusive ethnic type of nationalism. I ask again: Does this sort of policy encourage employers to come and stay in Montreal?

In the same vein, we had the statements by the former premier of Quebec, Mr. Parizeau and the minister of finance, Mr. Landry, which attacked the ethnic minorities in Quebec for their votes in the referendum and the interpretation of the poll results. These were statements which terribly upset the ethnic minorities in Quebec. There were recent statements which were even more extreme from Mr. Villeneuve who attacked the Jewish community in Quebec and said that they would get theirs once independence was brought about.

Do these kinds of statements encourage employers to come to Montreal: extremism in language policy; proposals to bring back the language police, which has even been attacked by part of the sovereignist community in Quebec and by the trade unions. However, there is still a proposal to bring back the language police and other extreme language policies. There is the recent situation at the hospital in Sherbrooke. The hospital put up bilingual signs to assist the elderly anglophone community of the eastern townships who must go to the Sherbrooke hospital and instructions came from Quebec City to take down the English signs even though they were in a secondary position.

There have been attacks on Mr. Galganov. In the first place, all he was doing was asking major businesses on the West Island of Montreal to respect the Quebec language laws and simply put up English language signs in accordance with the law of Quebec, which is English in a secondary position and in smaller letters. He was asking the stores to do that because their signs were only in French and yet he was attacked.

Does extremism in language policy encourage other Canadians, Americans, Europeans and Asians to invest and stay in Montreal?

I want to make clear that I fully support policies, and have for years, to assure and promote the French language and culture in Quebec and have it flourish. The federal government has done that for years and continues to do so. It has done it through Radio-Canada, CBC, the Canada Council, the CRTC, Telefilm Canada and assistance to theatres, museums, libraries and research.

It is without a doubt that Quebec, French Canada in general, is now the second strongest French culture in the world after France. Nobody can rival Quebec or French Canada. It is strong in writing, theatre, music and academia. It is very strong and has done that within the federal system. These extreme policies that I referred to are not necessary. All they are doing is hurting the economy, the jobs and the people of Quebec.

The purport of the resolution states that Montreal and Quebec are not getting their fair share. With respect to federal transfers to Quebec, in 1996-97, this fiscal year, while Quebec has 25 per cent

of the population of Canada, 31 per cent of the money transferred from the federal government to the provinces goes to Quebec. I support that because I think that is a fair share. It amounts to $11.1 billion. It has been approximately at that level for the last six years.

Yesterday there were questions in the House to the Prime Minister with respect to the granting of contracts in Quebec, saying that Quebec was not getting its fair share. The Prime Minister answered correctly that, first of all, we grant contracts on a tender basis and give out contracts to companies and professionals who apply for different jobs on a tender basis.

However, it is a question of the chicken and the egg. Quebec does not have the same number of entrepreneurs and professionals that it did when I first started in politics here in the 1960s. A lot have left. A lot have not come who would have come. A lot of former Montreal businessmen in Montreal head offices are now in Toronto, Calgary and elsewhere because of the extreme policies of the PQ governments with respect to these matters. They scared away firms that would have been there to bid on these contracts and probably get them for the Quebec people.

With respect to the assistance to industry, I was present this week when the Prime Minister announced the repayable loan of $87 million to Bombardier to develop a new aircraft. The federal government has been very supportive of the aircraft industry in Quebec. I will list them off. There was a contribution by Industry Canada of $940,000 to Matériaux techniques Côté; a contribution of $825,000 to École Polytechnique chaire industrielle; $5 million to Institut de recherche en biotechnologie; $1.7 million to Mallinckrodt Medical Inc. It goes on and on. Bell Helicopter received $8 million. Aliments Delisle received $1.5 million. Galderma received $1.6 million.

With respect to the infrastructure program which has just taken place over the last two years, the region of Montreal received 400 projects, of which the federal government contributed $236 million for 12,000 employees.

I see that my time is up. I simply want to say that if the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois really want to help with jobs in the economy in Montreal, they should forget about referendums and the extremism of their nationalistic policy, co-operate, take up the offer of the Prime Minister and together we will create jobs and develop Montreal as it used to be.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech made by my friend, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. I cannot, in any way, share his views on the Quebec sovereignist movement.

The term "Quebecer" is not exclusive, it is inclusive. It includes anglophones, such as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, and allophones, such as the member for Bourassa. The hon. member condemns the comments made by Villeneuve toward Jews, as we all did here in this House and elsewhere but, at the same time, he congratulates Mr. Galganov. The same rules should apply to two extremist members of Quebec's society.

The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and other Liberal members remained silent when a minister of this government, the former Minister of Human Resources Development, asked me to leave Canada, to look for another country, because I do not approve the government's policy and because I am a sovereignist member of Parliament. The member did not say anything then, nor did other government members.

It is unbelievable to hear a minister tell us there are two types of Canadians and Quebecers: those who agree with the federal government's policy are welcome, while those who do not must leave the country. I cannot accept such comments.

I also want to put a question to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. The federal government's inaction is the reason why Montreal's economic situation is catastrophic. It is because of measures taken by this government if, for example, Canadian International moved and is now concentrating its operations in the west, if it secured the rights to fly to the Czech Republic and is now Canada's carrier to the Asian market.

Air Canada is adversely affected because its head office is in Montreal. It cannot fly to Asia, it cannot fly delegates to the Liberal Party convention this weekend. Canadian International does it, as it will also fly those who will attend the rock concert, etc. Why? Tell me.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member will agree that this is a comment rather than a question. Nevertheless, I will give the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce an opportunity to reply.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while I share many things and some policies in common with my hon. friend, I guess this is an area where we disagree.

To being with, it is true that some members of the Bloc Quebecois and some members of the Parti Quebecois when they speak of Quebecois do include in their reflective moments all of us in Quebec, anglophones, minorities and so on. But there are others and even some in this House who when they speak about nous les Quebecois do not include us.

For example, I cannot remember the seat, but one hon. member during the referendum campaign stood up and said that only "les Québécois doivent avoir le droit de voter au référendum". He meant and he clarified that, and it was also said by a member of the

PQ in Quebec, that this meant the real Quebecois. By that he meant those who were the descendants of vieille souche.

There is abiguity over there. The hon. member says that the definition is inclusive. However, there are many others who speak of it exclusively and I could give many examples.

With respect to Mr. Galganov, I did not congratulate him on everything he did and said. I said he was right, however, when he campaigned on the West Island of Montreal to assure that the signs were both in English and French in accordance with the Quebec law which the Quebec government supported up until now. When Mr. Galganov did that he was right. He was not attacking the Quebec government. He was telling the various major stores on the West Island "do what the law gives you the right to do". In that he was right. I do not congratulate him for calling certain people bastards. I think he went too far on that.

Mr. Speaker, I have much more to say.