Debates of April 25th, 2002

Supply

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is referring to the real imbalance that currently exists. We could talk about many activity sectors, but in the case of the auto industry, we know that in Ontario it has developed at the expense of Quebec.

In 1965, when the auto pact was signed between Canada and the United States, the Canadian politicians made a commitment to expanding the auto industry in Quebec. We have no choice but to conclude that this is not what happened. Between 1964 and 2001, the share of the auto industry in Quebec has increased from 3 to 5%. This is a complete failure.

The proof, and my colleague has talked about it, is that 25% of all automobiles are sold in Quebec while Quebec only accounts for 3% of the jobs in assembly and 5% of the jobs in manufacturing.

This is far from being an equalization mechanism. Quebec is not getting its fair share in the projects and in structuring jobs, as the recovery of the GM plant could be, by building new models of vehicles.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a couple of points. Number one is that the workers in Quebec are extremely good workers. As we all know, that automobile plant has been around for 37 years. Although we know it is closing it has nothing to do with the quality of the plant.

I have made some points in terms of the political instability caused by the separatist notion in Quebec. However, beyond that, one of the points of similarity I want to make in relation to Atlantic Canada is that our shipbuilding industry has also been deserted by the Government of Canada. Prior to the last election the former minister of industry, Mr. Tobin, went to New Brunswick and promised just about the world in terms of restructuring, helping the industry, the letting of contracts and so on and so forth.

I do believe the federal government has a responsibility to all parts of Canada. It has to ensure that these workers get a fair deal. It has a lot to do in terms of regional disparity. We would like to see some action on this file.

I hope the government does recognize that some intellectual honesty in this debate has to be exercised in terms of that political instability.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that throughout today's debate, we have demonstrated intellectual rigour and not intellectual dishonesty, as the member demonstrated today in the House.

This was nothing but low demagoguery. I urge him to tell the GM workers what he has told us today. We will see who is really responsible today for the closing of the GM plant.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I would ask members to be careful of the language that is starting to be used in the House.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Crown Corporations]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this particular issue. I find myself in agreement with one of the questioners from the Progressive Conservative Party when he said that the Bloc Quebecois will have to forgive us on this side of the House and those in other parties if we are perhaps a little suspicious when a Bloc opposition day motion comes before this place suggesting that the province of Quebec is hard done by in relation to other provinces in the country. We are somewhat suspicious that perhaps there is another agenda involved in the motion.

During my five years in this place, while travelling with committees both in Canada and abroad, I have been pleasantly surprised by the work ethic and the attitude of many members of the Bloc Quebecois. I say that save and except for the one issue that drives virtually everything that the party stands for, which is the separation of the province of Quebec and the creation of its own country separate and distinct from Canada.

Unfortunately, when we read a motion that might simply call for assistance to a particular industrial sector in a particular part of the country, we find ourselves reading between the lines. That point was well made during the question and answer session, and it is bound to colour the debate in this place. However I will not let that happen, at least from my perspective. I will simply point out some facts.

To suggest, as the previous speaker said, that the auto industry in Quebec has suffered at the hands of the auto industry in Ontario, is patently false. In fact there may well be an argument that people who decided to invest in new auto plants in places like Cambridge or Alliston in the province of Ontario, may have considered going to Quebec at some time if there had been a better atmosphere of stability in the political life in that province.

No one questions the quality of the workers. No one questions the quality of the community life. What investors look for when they want to invest in a particular location is the likelihood for stability. What we have seen in the province of Quebec, particularly over the past couple of years, is a complete lack of interest in the agenda put forward by the Parti Quebecois in the province of Quebec and the Bloc Quebecois here in the House of Commons.

Quebecers, by and large, tell us in poll after poll, in meeting after meeting, in riding after riding and in byelection after byelection that they are not interested in that agenda. They want the same thing every other Canadian wants. They want a job with some security. They want a community where they feel safe. They want good quality education for their children. They want good quality health care. They also want a future as part of this great nation of Canada.

Let me share with the House some statistics in relation to the overall economy in this country. When things go into recession, provincial governments will often blame the federal government. However, when things go well, those same provincial governments tend to take credit for the economic boom and growth that is going on. It has nothing to do with federal policies. It has nothing to do with the largest tax cut in the history of this nation of $100 million. Might that fuel some economic activity in every province, including Quebec?

It has nothing to do with low interest rates, and yet when those provincial governments or certain interest groups in the provinces get nervous they might want us to raise or lower interest rates or artificially raise the dollar or do all of these gerrymandering activities of social interference on behalf of the government to somehow affect the economy.

We cannot take credit unilaterally as a federal government because this is a federation built on partnership. I would admit that when jobs increase in every part of the country it has as much to do with the policies of the provincial and municipal governments, the boards of trade, chambers of commerce, union halls and the construction industry. It has as much to do with all of that as it does with the federal government, but clearly the federal government has a role in setting the tone: balancing our budget eight years in a row; delivering unheard of surpluses on a consistent annual basis; and showing the kind of fiscal responsibility and leadership that give confidence to business to invest in the country. We constantly hear people opposite say that we are losing investment to the United States. The fact is that we are gaining investment from all over the world. People from every part of the world look at Canada and say what a marvelous place it is.

I recently travelled with our immigration committee to Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong and was very interested to note that the province of Quebec has offices in the same building, indeed, in a couple of cases on the same floor, as the Government of Canada. They work together on looking for economic opportunities. In some parts of the world, offices of the province of Ontario can be found, not everywhere, but I see Quebec offices virtually everywhere. Offices for the province of British Columbia can be found in some parts of the world. Again they are not everywhere, but I see Quebec offices everywhere. They are working co-operatively.

It might come as a surprise to the residents in the province of Quebec and the constituents of the hon. members opposite in the Bloc Quebecois that the people in those offices for Quebec work extremely well with their counterparts from the federal government. In fact they will say openly that they have the same goal, which is to bring investment, job growth and prosperity to Canada. Of course their interests are primarily directed at the people who employ them, their employers being the governments of the provinces of Quebec or Ontario or Alberta or British Columbia, but it is very much a hand in glove relationship and it is extremely positive.

I do not want to go on about the issue of separation, but I would add that if that particular dog were allowed to hunt we would lose that kind of relationship, I think, tragically and unfortunately. I should say as an aside that Premier Landry might be interested to know that his officer in the office in Shanghai presented us with a beautiful book on Quebec. When I opened it up there was a loose photograph of the premier, except that it was a photograph of Lucien Bouchard, not Premier Landry. I questioned the individual because I found it somewhat odd that there would be a photograph of a former premier in a document that they are handing out to anyone who visits. Hopefully that will change, because I think it is important that the individual in that office promote the province of Quebec as a place of investment with the current premier and government in place.

Let me share some job numbers, if I may. Retail and wholesale employers hired 18,000 more workers in March, bringing year over year growth to 4.1% since March 2001. Believe me, Quebec shared in that. Employment in agriculture grew by 12,000 jobs in March. More than half the increase was concentrated in Quebec, for over 7,000 jobs, likely influenced, I will admit, by unusually mild weather in addition to the policies of the government and of the province of Quebec in working co-operatively.

Quebec leads all employment growth across the country. Does that happen as a result of neglect by the federal government? I think not. I think the federal government must have some influence, something to say in addition to the efforts of the province, the municipalities and the businesses. I will again give some figures. Employment in Quebec was up 32,000 jobs in March, bringing year to date gains to 69,000. The unemployment rate fell 0.4 percentage points to 8.9%. I will admit that 8.9% unemployment is too high and we have to work with our partners in Quebec, that is, the government of Quebec, the businesses, the voters, the people who live in Quebec, to try to get that figure down.

In Ontario, as an example, to compare to the 32,000 jobs in March in the province of Quebec, employment rose by 17,000, bringing gains from the start of the year to 44,000. In British Columbia, employment was up by 11,000 jobs in March. In Alberta, 11,000 jobs fully offset a decrease it had gone through in the month of February.

Yet we do not hear people from the province of Alberta saying that they are being ignored at the expense of helping Ontario. I think their credibility would be stretched to say so. It is just nonsense. What we have in Ontario is a climate that welcomes business, that creates jobs. Again, it is this government, working in partnership with our provincial and municipal partners in our province, that is creating the jobs and economic growth. We are not doing it at the expense of other provinces. In fact the reality is that the provinces of Ontario and Alberta are fast becoming the only “have”, if you will, provinces in the Confederation. We have to revisit that, look at it and perhaps ensure that we are indeed transferring our growth opportunities and our investments all around this great country.

Even in Manitoba there were 7,000 new jobs, bringing total gains since August to 13,000. In New Brunswick there were 6,000 jobs in March and the unemployment rate was down by 0.8%. In Newfoundland and Labrador, where everyone would say they have some of the most difficult economic situations to deal with in terms of their transportation problems, lack of foreign investment and lack of jobs, there was an employment increase of 3,000 in March, again reducing the unemployment rate.

Let me deal specifically with the motion. I am just trying to set the tone, if I may, that there is economic prosperity in our land, there is growth in jobs, there are low interest rates, there are balanced budgets, there are tax cuts and there are benefits that every Canadian is seeing in terms of money in their pockets and quality of life for their families.

What did the federal government do with regard to the General Motors plant in the province of Quebec that is being referred to? Let me give some examples. First, the federal government has worked closely with the mayor of Boisbriand and the committee that was set up, le Comité de soutien de l'industrie automobile dans les Basses-Laurentides, which is a task force of local business people, the Quebec government, the Canadian Autoworkers union and officials of both the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois. The federal government worked with that committee, along with the mayor, to try to keep the plant in operation and save jobs.

Let me say that the government deplores the decision of General Motors to close that plant. Under no circumstances are we happy about it, nor are we supportive of it, but at the end of the day General Motors is a profitable company. General Motors is not a company that I think the taxpayers by and large would agree with federal tax subsidies going to. It is a company that is highly competitive and highly profitable. I would challenge anybody in this place who thinks we should return to the day when we were simply handing out largesse or corporate welfare to corporations like General Motors, which has the ability to set up a business plan, to balance its own operations and to make its own decisions.

Notwithstanding that, the federal government saw the plight of the workers in that plant and therefore worked with the mayor, with the local committee, with the provincial government and even with members of the federal Bloc Quebecois Party to see what we could do to soften the blow or to save those jobs. Through our Canada economic development plan we supported the committee financially. We have gone to the well as much as we possibly could have to recognize the significance of this situation and to try to work with the local community. We led the negotiations at GM headquarters in Detroit in an attempt to resolve the concerns.

There are a number of other things our government has done and there is a point I want to make with regard to the workers. I think it is very important. I believe that most of the credit for this should rest with the Canadian Autoworkers, which negotiated a collective bargaining agreement that obviously had the welfare and the concerns of the people whom they represent, the workers at this plant, at heart. It is interesting to note, although I did not hear anyone opposite say this, that 90% of the people working in that plant will be eligible for early retirement. The collective bargaining agreement will ensure that salaries will be paid for up to three years. I think that is a pretty outstanding agreement negotiated with both General Motors and the Canadian Autoworkers on behalf of those people. There is a recognition by all parties concerned that this is a serious problem.

I have a situation in my neighbouring community. Many of my constituents work at the Ford plant in Oakville. Ford has made a decision to shut down one of the lines. It is no longer going to make the F-150 truck at the Ford plant. It will continue to make the van and it will continue to have a business there. It is not closing the plant, but it is closing a shift. Should we then as a government go to Ford and say that in spite of the fact that it is one of the most successful companies in its field, as is GM in North America, we should come along and use the taxpayers' money? Is that what I am hearing? Is that what people want us to do? In spite of the fact that there would be many people in my community who would be impacted by that Ford decision, I do not think even they would want me to suggest to the finance minister or the Prime Minister that somehow we should ride to the rescue and bail out some of these corporations.

I know for a fact that all the members opposite in all parties use the Human Resources Development Canada offices right across the land to help their displaced workers, to help their people who have families and who need assistance to get back on their feet after a job loss through no particular fault of their own. I know they will go to bat for their constituents and their workers through the employment insurance fund to make sure that their people are dealt with fairly and have an opportunity to get their lives back together.

These are difficult times and difficult decisions. When we figure that through a form of attrition, through guaranteed collective bargaining, 90% will be looked after financially and then with HRDC's assistance some opportunities will be put in place for retraining, it is unfair, and as I said earlier perhaps it is politically motivated, to suggest that the federal government should be condemned for these actions.

When companies look to invest in our communities we know from statistical analysis that they look for a number of things. They look for stability in the community. They look for quality education for their children. They look for safety in the community. They look for affordable housing. They look for good transportation for their employees. They look for an available well trained labour force. They look for financial competence and leadership from the municipal, provincial and federal governments.

That kind of leadership exists in my city of Mississauga. I know it exists across the country. In spite of the protestations from the members opposite, I also know it exists in the province of Quebec. Frankly, I think this condemnation is slightly out of order.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Madam Speaker, after hearing the same old tune from the hon. member for New Brunswick Southwest, we now have to listen to the bogeyman scare tactics of the Liberals, who used tired old arguments to maintain that political instability is the root of all economic ills in Quebec. Yet, in a speech where he expressed somewhat contradictory and paradoxical views, the member himself listed Quebec's economic achievements under a Liberal government.

I would ask the hon. member to be a bit more consistent on this matter and use common sense when weighing off what he sees as the sole reason for Quebec's economic hardship, which is political instability, against the great economic achievements made possible by what he calls the excellent economic policies put in place by his government. We suggest greater consistency is in order here.

I should also point out to the hon. member that we never claimed that his government's economic policies had absolutely nothing to do with the economic prosperity that Quebec has been enjoying for a number of years. What we are saying—and I am repeating it loud and clear—is that, overall, Quebec has managed to achieve economic success in spite of the hurdles and the lack of co-operation on the part of the federal government. The federal government seldom provides meaningful support. As regards this issue, it has not provided very meaningful assistance.

As I indicated this morning, at the time, when the minister responsible for economic development in Quebec came back from Detroit, he said “We will do everything we can until the very end to ensure that the Boisbriand plant can continue its operations”. What have the minister and his government done since he made that nice statement with a hand on his heart? Absolutely nothing.

This is not from the bad separatist member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes, but from the union members of the GM plant in Boisbriand. The member opposite should leave aside his anti-separatist rhetoric.

Now, I would like to tell the hon. member, who seems to think that political instability is at the root of all that ails Quebec, that, in the year 2000, Quebecers bought 390,374 motor vehicles, for a total sales value of $10.5 billion. As regards GM specifically, sales of GM products in Quebec generated net revenues of $2.6 billion last year. This figure would be slightly higher if we included the share of GM's merged partners and allies.

Last year, GM's North American operations generated an average profit of $1,189 per vehicle. With its 94,840 sales in Quebec, GM made at least $112 million in profits on its sales in Quebec, this for the year 2000. Is this not a strictly economic argument that should justify GM being a little more sensitive to the concerns of its workers? As Henri Massé said “I drive a GM vehicle, but I can certainly switch brands”.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, usually when one does not have something to say, one attacks someone personally. I will try to avoid that and apologize for my scratchy throat if that is what the member is hearing.

Let me say I agree with the member on one thing. I sure as heck am anti-separatist, and that can be taken to the bank. I believe we have to keep this country together. I believe most Quebecers want to keep this country together.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Not at any price.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Yes, at any price. The fact of the matter is the people of Quebec understand that their economic future and growth will occur by being solidly supportive of this country, not separating into a separate political unit, not going off on their own. There would be nowhere to go to complain under a separatist government. They would have to look in the mirror. Even the leader of the Bloc Quebecois said publicly that he supported the government in the efforts being put forth to try to save the GM plant.

If they want to condemn us, perhaps they had better look in the mirror because they should be condemning themselves.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I do agree with the member opposite that using today's supply day motion to criticize the government about failing to subsidize a profitable organization really is a waste of time. I must say there are so many other better things to criticize the government of. The list is extensive--

[An hon. member]

We never asked for subsidies. That is rubbish.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I apologize to the hon. member, but we will show the same respect to the speaker that was shown to the hon. member.

All members will have their turn for questions and comments. I ask that the same kind of respect be extended to all.

The hon. member for Fraser Valley.

[Chuck Strahl, Canadian Alliance, Fraser Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that there are so many other better things to criticize the government for and I could have given a long list. There are a couple of points I would like to make.

In British Columbia we could only wish that an auto plant would close. We do not have any auto plants in British Columbia because of the longstanding industrial strategy of the federal government to ensure that the auto industry is focused in a narrow geographic area. We do not have an aerospace industry to shut down because it is focused on a specific area because of a long term government industrial strategy.

We could wish for a shutdown but we do not have those industries because the government has not allowed the marketplace to determine where the plants should be located. For too long it has used government strategy, government subsidies and government money to make sure that we in British Columbia are hewers of wood and carriers of water instead of having the diversified industrial economy we could have had if the government and others before it had not interfered in the free marketplace.

I ask the member to comment on his explanation that it is wrong, and I agree with him, for the government at this time to intervene in a market driven economy and to give public money to a profitable corporation. It is making profits and is one of the biggest employers in Canada. It is just plain wrong.

Would he also agree that it is wrong to give other kinds of government subsidies to profitable businesses in the same way? Why for example would the government continue to give different industrial type subsidies to Bombardier? Again it is a profitable and very successful Canadian company which we can be proud of. However it does not deserve or need in my opinion government largesse because it is already making a good profit and producing good products.

To be consistent, would it not be right to wean all of these companies off the government teat so that they would finally carry their own load in the free market world that we increasingly have to compete in? We could do away with the challenges from Brazil. We could do away with the accusations that ministers use their relationships with people in companies to get stuff and all of that. Would it not be better just to get out of the business of business and let the free market decide what is successful?

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is actually the stated position of the official opposition, unless of course it has to do with farm subsidies or softwood lumber when we would not want to let the free market take over there, we would want to make sure we get in there and help out. The point is I think there has to be a balance.

Let me be clear that we did not totally ignore the General Motors plant in the province of Quebec. In fact, when GM announced its retrofit of $450 million, $220 million of that was lent by both the federal and the provincial governments. It was given an interest free period to 2017.

[An hon. member]

Shame.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

The member says shame. It is not a shame.

It is the same as investments in our technology partnerships fund. It allows for companies to do research and development, to do retooling. The taxpayer gets the money back. In the case of the technology partnerships fund, the taxpayer actually shares in the benefits by getting paid dividends. I would be happy to share many examples of that with the member opposite.

Handouts and freebies are not on. Good business decisions to ensure that jobs are protected and that economic development works in our communities is what our government is all about.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. member for Beauport—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are asking for the same respect.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Order, please. It is very difficult for the Chair to hear the hon. member who is speaking when everyone is speaking at the same time.

The hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to read the motion that we have been debating since 10:15 this morning. I do not want, through my speech, to answer my colleague from Fraser Valley, as a member of the Canadian Alliance or the former Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Coalition. This colleague has changed places several times in the House.

First of all, we must specify that, what the Bloc Quebecois is seeking through this motion is not for tens of millions of dollars in grants for General Motors. This is not the goal. We sometimes have to be educators because some colleagues come to the House for a little while, attend other businesses and think they can just hop on the train. I would like to read the motion once again.

This text reads, and I quote:

That this House condemn the government for its inability to defend the workers at the General Motors plant in Boisbriand and thus allowing the vehicle assembly sector of the Quebec auto industry to disappear.

This is a condemnation of the government.

Right off the top, I would like to congratulate GM workers in Boisbriand who, in spite of the threat of closure that has been hovering over this plant for a number of years—since the Liberals came to power—have kept on working very hard to show GM that their plant is economically viable and must stay open.

These workers must be congratulated. They could have done as others have in other places where very low morale, sabotage, threats, strained labour relations, clashes between clans, and deteriorating equipment have been observed. But no, they have kept on working, rolling up their sleeves and saying they would prove GM was making a mistake, and there is no way their plant will close. These workers, members of the Canadian Auto Workers, Quebec section, must be congratulated.

On behalf of my party, I attended a press conference in the Quebec City area in February. A convoy of workers travelled through Quebec. I have newspaper clippings about this; it was covered by the regional press in every region of Quebec.

I attended this meeting at the FTQ offices in Quebec, and I noticed that people from the local union, but also those from the Canadian Auto Workers headquarters are first and foremost professionals.

I drive a GM product which I bought from the GM dealer in my riding on the Beaupré coast. My car was built in a plant in Lansing, Michigan, I believe, since there is a sticker to this effect on the rear window, and I am quite pleased with it. People in my riding came to me; customers of this dealership were upset about GM's plans to shut the plant down.

Ordinary citizens were saying “There is no way the only assembly plant in Quebec can be shut down. The people of Quebec will not stand for it. There should be a campaign for a Quebec boycott of GM products, to make the company think it over”.

We members of this House, regardless of our party label, whether our friends over there, or those of us over here, were sent here by our fellow citizens to speak for them. They elected us democratically for that purpose. The comment I am going to make is not partisan in any way.

I came here with a mission. I felt obliged to pass the message on to the union representatives at the press conference and the meeting in Quebec City. “People are talking about a campaign to boycott GM products”. The union's response to this made it clear this was not the solution. Its response was very responsible and professional. “On the contrary, we will keep working on productivity, on controlling costs, and on proving that this cannot happen. It makes no sense to shut down a plant that is cost-effective”.

I must again—even if this makes six times in three minutes—congratulate the workers of GM Boisbriand. I do this in order to be properly understood.

GM's success in Quebec is not just because of costs. Strong increases in productivity have played an even greater role. Despite the constant threats regarding the future of the plant which have lowered production substantially in the past five years, the workers at the Boisbriand plant have become more and more productive.

Auto industry productivity experts agree that the facilities, which are operating well under capacity, are at a serious disadvantage.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that I am still able to capture your attention on such an important topic. I am sure that people living in Ahuntsic, in your riding, work at GM.

How can a plant designed to turn out 230,000 vehicles a year remain cost-effective if it produces only 75,000? I am not claiming to be an economist. I worked in human resources for 16 years in the pulp and paper industry. And this is easily understandable. We have a plant capable of turning out 230,000 vehicles and we are asking it to be cost-effective, productive and to cut its costs while producing only 75,000 vehicles a year.

Yet employee performance in Boisbriand is better today than at GM's other sports vehicle plant in Bowlingreen, Kentucky, the plant producing Corvettes. GM's Boisbriand plant produces Camaros and Firebirds, so-called sports models. We need to compare vehicles. If we are going to compare one plant with another, we must pick plants with comparable products.

Madam Speaker, you are letting me know that I have one minute left. I should have told you at the beginning that I was going to use the full time allowed me, 20 minutes. I therefore understand that I still have—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sorry, but the clerk indicated initially that Bloc members would be splitting their time. We will correct that. You have ten minutes left.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC]

Madam Speaker, your remarks lasted one minute. You just told me I had one minute left, and now I have ten more, and one plus ten makes ten, I guess. No problem. Even if you must be neutral, you are still a Liberal member. In any case I am not questioning your integrity. But you have to know that I will use my time to the very last second. That is a given.

Over the last ten years, productivity at the Boisbriand plant has increased by 70%, compared to an average of 54% in all GM plants. Therefore, it can be said that its performance has been good despite an uncertain future. These figures are not provided by the Bloc Quebecois. You can check them. They come from the annual Harbour Report, put out by a specialized firm that examines productivity reports in the auto industry. From 1989 to 1996 the Boisbriand plant had an average productivity of 55,7%, when GM's average was 40,6%. From 1997 to 2000, productivity increased by 14.5% in Boisbriand whereas the average increase was only 13.4%. The total increase was 70.2%, while the average increase for GM was 54%.

On top of cost advantages, the excellent increase in productivity, despite an uncertain future, is one more proof of the deep commitment of Boisbriand workers to the success of their plant.

I could also mention government support. In 1987, when the plant experienced a few problems, different levels of government, including the Quebec government, made an interest free loan to the Boisbriand plant.

However, since my time is limited, I will skip this issue to concentrate on another aspect.

Earlier, our colleague from Mississauga West, like the good Ontarian that he is—my mother always says that it is easy to talk on a full stomach—does not understand, with 98% of Canada's auto industry concentrated in Ontario, that Quebec wants to save the only assembly plant within its territory.

When we hear comments like the ones made by our colleague from Mississauga West, who talks about political instability, we thank him. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, have the speeches of our colleague from Mississauga West translated into French and we distribute them throughout Quebec because it spurs us on. It motivates us, it puts wood in our stove. I see my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord laughing. He loves it when I use local expressions in my speeches because, even though I represent a riding in the Quebec City area, I am still very proud to be a native of the Saguenay region. Like I said it puts wood in our stove to hear ridiculous comments like those made by my colleague from Mississauga West and my colleague from Fraser Valley, who says that we are asking the government to subsidize profitable plants when it is not the case at all.

On the issue of instability mentioned by the member for Mississauga West, let me say that, in 2000 and 2001, GM made various investments including $1.5 billion in its Springfield plant, in Tennessee; $122 million in its Asumbuja plant, in Portugal; $70 million in its Lansing plant where my Oldsmobile was assembled; $700 million in its Oklahoma City plant; $500 million in its Kansas City plant, and $340 million in a plant located in Russia.

In Russia, they do not speak English but GM invested $340 million in Russia; it invested $33 million in a plant in Lafayette, Indiana; $200 million in a plant in Loughton, England--but there is a good chance they speak English there; and $400 million in a plant in Saragossa, Spain. And that is not counting various other developments in Asia and North America shortly before that. It is clear that GM invests everywhere except in Quebec.

Let us not forget that, when GM decided to build its plant in Sainte-Thérèse, 36 years ago I think, it was not to please us. It was because it realized it could count on highly skilled, qualified and hard-working employees.

During the visit I mentioned earlier, I met guys who said: “I have GM tattooed on my heart”. These people are proud to work for their company. If GM came here, it is because it was a good business decision. It now has one of the best plants.

When Canadian Auto Workers met Ms. Darkes, the former President of GM--I have been told she has been transferred--she said “The problem with the GM plant in Boisbriand is not so much one of cost or productivity as it is of overcapacity”. When one decides to make investments in Portugal, Russia, England or Spain and in five or six plants in the United States or elsewhere, does this mean that there are no productivity or overcapacity problems elsewhere? The question begs the answer.

Let us consider other statistics. Quite recently, on April 16, 2002, General Motors announced a 146% increase in its first quarter profits. This does not take into account exceptional costs and the profits made by the GM subsidiary called Youth Electronics, because of a strong surge in its truck sales in North America.

For the first quarter of 2002, GM recorded profits of $791 million U.S., or $1.39 U.S. per share, compared to $321 million a year earlier.

If we take into account the per capita vehicle production, the Canadian auto industry is the first in the world, ahead of that of the United States. As we know, around 85% of this production is exported to the United States, which accounts to a large extent for the trade surpluses Canada has with its powerful neighbour.

I also remind the House of the statistics mentioned a moment ago by my colleague for Verchères—Les-Patriotes. Last year, Quebecers bought 390,374 new vehicles, for a total value of $10.5 billion.

One can acknowledge that the workers were reasonable. They have acted and continue to act in a professional way. Contrary to what my colleague from Fraser Valley was saying a moment ago, we are not asking for charity nor for grants. We are saying that the federal government should assume its responsibilities, that it should pressure General Motors to keep the only assembly plant outside of Ontario, and located in Quebec, open and maiantain the jobs of these skilled workers.

What we are asking of General Motors and the federal government is consideration and respect for the workers, who are not asking for charity but only want what is rightfully theirs.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier today, the auto industry, in Quebec, should have a great future.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.