Debates of April 25th, 2002

Supply

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a bit of confusion on the hon. member's planet.

Clearly, we are in a North American market when we talk about the east of Canada, including Quebec and Ontario, which allows for a relatively similar industrial development.

There is no objective reason why the auto industry did not develop in Quebec as it did in Ontario. Furthermore costs are cheaper and productivity is higher in Quebec. Over time federal policies and a number of other factors allowed Ontario to get the upper hand.

What we are asking is this: there is a vehicle assembly plant in Quebec and we want to keep it. We are also asking that when an industry develops in Quebec, the government avoid applying a piecemeal approach throughout Canada, but rather allow synergism to develop in regional markets in order to re-enforce them and make them more competitive in a global context.

It is the federal government's responsibility as well as that of provincial governments to deal with this issue, in the same way that we have to deal with the problems of western farmers, for whom I have much sympathy. I will not let them down. As long as we are a part of Canada we will not leave them out in the cold because they need our help to solve their problems.

In the same way, I expect that Westerners will not abandon the GM workers in Sainte-Thérèse and will support our motion.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. Liberal colleague for Beauharnois--Salaberry, not to name him, said a moment ago that nothing was done for the GM plant and that we were waiting until the last minute. I found that somewhat insulting.

We have been working on this issue for years. In our regions, in my region, many workers have been working for GM for years. We are concerned by this issue and we have been working on it for a long time. We are trying to find ways to solve the problem.

What is lacking now is the political will of the Liberal government. The Prime Minister of Canada should intervene. That is what is lacking now. That is the will we asking for. We are not asking for partisanship; we want to save this plant. It is not only this plant that we want to save, but the whole auto industry in Quebec. The GM plant was the only vehicle assembly plant left in Quebec, and now, the auto industry in Quebec is going to be totally wiped out.

I would like to hear from my colleague from Joliette who made a great speech.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Laurentides for her question.

I think she is pointing out something extremely important, that is the fact that we have only one vehicle assembly plant, which creates a many indirect jobs in the subcontracting sector.

True, GM has committed itself to increase its subcontracting and is closing its plant in Sainte-Thérèse. However, if that plant closes, we will lose expertise. In the end, these businesses will also close, because there will be no vehicle assembly plant left in Quebec.

An investment decision that was supposed to be made in Quebec has already been transferred in Ontario, as a result the announced closing of the GM plant. Consequently, it is crucial to keep the plant open and to have the politicaldetermination to do so.

The former secretary of state responsible for regional economic development came back from Detroit and said “I do not see which Canadian program could be used for that purpose”. Generally speaking, the Liberals have more than enough imagination when it comes to helping certain friends. Consequently, they should also be able to do some creative thinking in this case. I hope the new secretary of state will be more creative than the previous one.

To conclude, I want to state that, for the sake of the auto industry not only in Quebec but in all of Canada, the GM plant in Sainte-Thérèse must stay open. We are well aware that the industry in Canada is threatened by the developing industry in Mexico and that we are not investing enough in research and development. Sainte-Thérèse could be the opportunity to mobilize to keep the auto industry in Quebec and in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak about this unfortunate issue. It also happens to be a priority for members on this side. A great deal of efforts have been made. It is always sad to think about the potential closure of a plant and the resulting loss of jobs, because in the end the families pay the price.

However, I take issue with this opposition motion blaming the government for its lack of action in this file when we know that the Government of Canada has been involved in a concrete way on a daily basis, sitting on the committee, offering funding, setting up meetings and working very closely with the Quebec government on this issue. In view of all the efforts that have been made for several months, I wonder why the opposition would choose to put forward such a motion today.

For several years now, the Government of Canada has been working on this issue with the industry. Even the ministers have taken part in this debate, meeting, visiting and exchanging with people at GM Canada.

Despite all the suggestions by the various stakeholders concerning alternate uses for the plant—plans were developed, proposals were presented, including assembling specialized vehicles, refurbishing and other activities linked to the auto industry—GM does not seem to be interested in any of these solutions. The government of Quebec even went as far as offering over $300 million, which GM turned down. So this has nothing to do with money; it probably has to do with the worldwide restructuring of the auto industry.

The GM corporation has decided and announced publicly that it would close its plants in September 2002. We do not like this decision. Personally I do not like it. As a government member, I can say that not one of my colleagues in this House accepts this decision by General Motors. We believe it is a business decision.

We are fully aware that the government has done everything it could to keep the plant open, and the story does not end here. Other efforts are being made in this respect.

We are also fully aware that some things cannot be controlled and are beyond the control of even the Government of Canada. This happens to be one of them.

I am not saying this in a flippant way. General Motors has decided to close the plant, and it seems that it will close. This is unfortunate, and it has a huge negative impact on a region, but it does not mean the end for the auto industry in Quebec or its vehicle assembly sector. Far from it. There are in fact many encouraging aspects in the auto industry in Quebec.

For example, in the last few months, several announcements were made to the effect that the auto industry is still viable in Quebec. I think we can all feel encouraged by the announcements made recently by the Saargummi group, the Société de développement du magnésium and Bridgestone-Firestone Inc., which are expecting to make new investments of more than $100 million in the auto industry in Quebec.

Of course, these may not be major investments when compared to this huge General Motors plant in Boisbriand. However, these investment decisions made by the businesses that I just mentioned still clearly reflect the world class quality, international competitiveness and potential of the auto industry in Quebec.

Thus, contrary to what the opposition would have us believe, the auto industry in Quebec is not about to disappear, not now or in the near future.

As for the Government of Canada, it will continue to do everything possible to promote the growth of the auto industry and to attract new investments in Quebec.

The Government of Canada is also working very hard to attract new investment for the auto industry all over our country.

In both Quebec and Ontario, the Government of Canada is consulting with the provincial government, the industry and the unions, working together to find ways to address the issues that have an impact on future investment, production and innovation in the auto industry.

Even after General Motors had announced it was closing the plant in Boisbriand because of an excess production capacity and a decreased demand for sports cars, federal representatives continued to work not only to find alternatives to the assembly plant, but also to promote the overall development of the auto industry in the region and throughout the province.

Besides promoting and facilitating new investment in Quebec's auto industry, the Government of Canada is supporting the development of new light materials, like aluminum and magnesium, for the design and manufacturing of the cars of the future.

Several public statements have been made to this effect. Bernard Landry, the Premier of Quebec, who was then finance minister, said, and I quote:

Aluminum, magnesium, light metals and our expertise help us keep are hopes high. If we can build planes, and we have the fifth largest aerospace industry in the world, we must be able to build cars.

He said it again in September 2001, “The future of our auto industry relies on aluminum and aluminum relies on the auto industry”.

Even the leader of the Bloc leader Quebecois stated, in September 2001, “We will have to see if new models can be tested there or if aluminum can be used. We should not give up”.

I could provide the House with many other statements that indicate that magnesium and aluminum are securing a most interesting position for Quebec on the world market. In terms of production and quality, it could give us quite an edge.

I can assure you that the Canadian government officials will keep working with all those concerned, as they are already doing. It is not true that the Canadian government is totally uninvolved. We will always support the Comité de soutien à l'industrie automobile dans les Basse-Laurentides, to promote future investment opportunities in this area. The Government of Canada is represented in these meetings and discussions.

Everybody knows that, after many years of record growth and production, the auto industry in Canada and in the United States has experienced a slowdown in the last couple of years.

Generally speaking, the auto industry has had to respond to several economic difficulties, including a general economic downturn, sluggish demand and a change in consumer preferences. Many companies had to restructure globally and to close down plants and eliminate jobs in Canada and in other countries.

The auto industry being in a restructuring phase because of production overcapacity, this has had an impact on tire production. In my riding, a Goodyear plant has over 1,500 workers. People are apprehensive about their future. When car sales drop, tire sales go down as well. There is a causal relation. We are already working with Goodyear to find a way for the company to reposition.

We should keep in mind that GM's situation is not unique, nor is the situation at the plant in Boisbriand.

The loss of the Boisbriand plant is unfortunate, but other plants have closed down. Even in Ontario, thousands of jobs have been lost lately in the auto industry. Every company in the auto industry is affected because of the intense competition on the world market. Everything is definitely not over for the workers, the community, or the industry.

Earlier, the hon. member for Joliette told an anecdote about Expro. In 1992, when I was a member of the National Assembly, we took real action on Expro, which is located in my riding. During the last election campaign, the Government of Canada was asked to once again get involved in the Expro issue, and the government did get involved by providing in excess of $40 million.

It is just not true that the federal government always says no to plants that are located in Quebec. A job in Ontario, New Brunswick or Saskatchewan is a job in Canada. We must always work to preserve our jobs.

The situation in the auto industry is special. In Quebec, we have a major problem in that there is only one plant. There used to be two, during the eighties, when the Hyundai plant was in operation, but it is no longer in operation. GM is the only plant that we have left.

However, we have a choice. An automobile is made up of several components. There is a rear-view mirror and there is also a windshield at the front. The rear-view mirror is always smaller than the windshield. There is a reason for this: it is more important to know where we are going than where we have come from.

In GM's case, the solutions proposed by stakeholders, with the participation of the federal government, are forward looking. People are already looking ahead and they are trying to see what we can do now, not in 10 or 20 years, to help the region, to preserve these jobs and to get the region's economy going again, both in the auto industry and in other industries.

In conclusion, we will oppose this motion. We cannot accept the blame for an issue in which we are involved on a daily basis. If there is an issue on which we will continue to work, it is Quebec's auto industry. The industry does not only build cars, it also manufactures major components, and this is what will help Quebec regain its position and play a major role on the international market.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, the member for Beauharnois--Salaberry.

I am perfectly willing to look ahead, through the front windshield, but I realize that we are just about to loose the one and only vehicle assembly plant in Quebec. I also agree to look forward through the windshield to see the 1,400 jobs that will be lost next September. While driving along, still looking ahead of me, nothing prevents me from looking in the rearview mirror and seeing the Liberal members from Quebec, who say they were members of the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Industry and were involved in the work done at committee level. However, it is important to realize that, from this point of view, the Liberal members from Quebec showed how ineffective they are.

In real terms, what is the Liberal federal government willing to invest, in terms of money, financial support or any other acceptable contribution, to rescue the 1,400 jobs at GM and to keep the industry in Quebec? In real terms, what is the federal government willing to do, today, to save the GM plant in Boisbriand?

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, it is not money that GM wants since it was offered more than $300 million by the Quebec government and turned the offer down.

In any economic recovery project of that kind involving a government, like the Quebec government, the federal government also participates. As for those 1,400 jobs however, I also look through the windshield and see that the workers are protected by the company. It offers good protection programs. Ninety per cent of them will be eligible for early retirement. Under the collective agreements, they will collect their salary for up to three years. This will apply to 90% of 1,400 workers. It is a lot.

Not too many plants offer such a good plan. But this is not where the problem lies. The problem is not for the worker who will lose his job now or who will enjoy early retirement. The problem lies in the 1,200 to 1,400 jobs that we will be losing for a long time.

The young people who are currently in school getting ready to fill high technology positions will not be able to count on those 1,200 jobs to get on the job market. However, the Quebec government and the federal government can cooperate as we are doing now. There is actually close cooperation between the two governments to breathe new life into the auto industry in Quebec. With other sectors, other specialties and other niches, we will be developing new quality jobs in order to help young graduates find a job.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like everybody to look through the same window. It is important if we want success in dealing with the GM issue. But that is not what is happening. The ball is being thrown back to us. We are being told that GM does not need money.

The situation is urgent. We could lose 1,400 jobs. The member, who was Minister of Labour, is fully aware of the very difficult situation that these people will be facing and the situation that is being created in the region. It is all very fine and well to manufacture parts, but without assembly plants, the auto industry will not get very far.

That industry must stay alive. As has been said, the need is there. We want the federal government's involvement; we have asked for it. The Minister of Industry was much more open earlier when he said that he was willing to look at possible solutions, that he was willing to go back to Detroit. Now all he has to do is ask the Prime Minister to join him.

So this is what I want to ask the member: if the minister is willing to do it, why, as parliamentary secretary, is he not willing to take the same position as the minister? This is not something for the next election campaign; we do not want bridges. We just want to save an industry that will shut down in September.

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we normally keep our promises.

[An hon. member]

Where are the bridges?

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Yes, you will see. Even the sceptics will be proven wrong, as the saying goes.

We must not put constraints on the retransformation, as it were, of the auto industry in Quebec, by positioning it in a new market niche, whether that niche involves the production of parts from magnesium—of which we are one of the world's largest producers—or from aluminum.

Let us say that 85% of our exports and our production in Quebec, is with the Americans. Even if assembly plants are located elsewhere, in Mexico, the United States or Canada, if we can succeed in developing a niche in this field, it will obviously be an industry of the future, a structured industry. Then we can go on to phase II, transforming our aluminum or magnesium production.

I support the Minister of Industry's offer to go back to Detroit to meet with stakeholders. The message from the Minister of Industry earlier shows that we are working as closely with the Government of Quebec and the committee in question as we are with workers, unions, the mayor of the municipality and residents of the area. There is an exceptional partnership. As positions are developed, we will be there. We will be there for the implementation of these solutions or proposals.

If the game plan involves organizing other meetings with GM's directors in Detroit, we will obviously take part. In conclusion, we are not on the outside. We are playing a part, as a government, just like the Government of Quebec, and we are prepared to work with the Government of Quebec as it looks for ways to breathe new life into the auto industry.

This is why I must vote against this motion calling on the House to condemn the Government of Canada for its failure to take action on this issue. I do not think this is the right approach. They want to make this a political debate, and this is the place to do so.

However, the Government of Canada, through the Department of Industry and Economic Development Canada, is taking an active role in this issue and we are going to work to develop forward-looking solutions for the area and for the auto industry.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government must get involved concretely and immediately. We cannot afford, on such an issue, to wait three or four elections before responding.

The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry promised his constituents bridges. He can show that he effectively discussed this with the Minister of Transportation and in committee and that this could be done within three or four elections. However, we cannot allow bridges to be built in the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry while we are losing some 1,400 or 1,500 jobs in Boisbriand, through the closing of the GM plant.

What we need is for the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry to ask the minister and the Prime Minister of Canada, who is from Quebec, to get together with the Bloc Quebecois in defending the interests of GM and GM workers and also to ask that the federal government pay attention to GM's needs, that is what is necessary after Quebec already invested $340 million and was able to do a little more.

They should say: “What will you need? We, the federal government, are making a commitment, like we made a commitment with the United States after September 11 by saying to president Bush that we would give him our unconditional support”. This cost us lives, equipment and money. Is the government able to give GM, in the Montreal region, the same thing it promised the United States, that is unconditional support?

[Serge Marcil, Liberal, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we faced the PACCAR problem, both governments worked hand in hand. We managed to revive the plant with the FTQ's Fonds de solidarité, even though the company had reported profits in its financial statements.

We must be careful. Are governments only there to provide money? In this case, this is not the problem. It is not a problem of money, but of repositioning and restructuring of the auto industry around the world. The Government of Canada is willing to co-operate with the Quebec government on this issue.

When we are being asked what we will do concretely, we do what is being asked of us and we do it well.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel. Therefore, I will use 10 of the 20 minutes I am allotted to speak about this important issue, which the Bloc Quebecois has chosen to debate on its opposition day. The issue of the GM plant closing involves 1,000 direct jobs and close to 10,000 indirect jobs in Quebec.

To begin with, I would like to read the motion because quite often in the House discussions go this way and that way, and in the end, we forget what the topic of the debate was supposed to be and which motion we were supposed to debate. I will read it again so that all those who are listening to us understand what we are talking about today. The motion states:

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

The word inability may mean a lot of things. It may mean a lack of leadership, a lack of will. It may mean that one is only taking small steps while knowing that much more beneficial steps could be taken. It may mean that when the previous industry minister went to Detroit to meet with GM executives, he was in a negative frame of mind. He came out of his meeting throwing the towel right away saying “There is nothing we can do. There is no government program that can help GM workers keep their industry alive”.

It is similar to what they are saying now to sawmill workers in Quebec, “We cannot do anything for you. There are no other programs than the existing ones”.

Liberal members are telling us that they took action, but we are saying that they were not taken with a determination to succeed and they are not the real actions GM workers were entitled to expect.

What is GM? It is a company located in Boisbriand that has an impact over the entire region of the Lower Laurentians and even on my riding of Repentigny. Some of the people who work for GM live in my riding, because the plant is not that far from their home. When things go well at the plant, it has an impact on the whole town, region and extended region, just as when the plant is threatened with imminent closure.

GM has had its ups and downs, as the president mentioned. However, at one point, it was really doing great and providing a lot of jobs. Everyone in the region, restaurants, shops and other businesses thrived while GM was doing so well.

If the GM plant closes down, as was mentioned in this debate, we stand to lose 1,400 direct jobs and 9,000 indirect jobs all over the province, whether it be in the region of the Lower Laurentians, Lanaudière, Beauce, the Outaouais, the Eastern Townships, in south-west Montreal, and elsewhere. Smaller companies might also be forced out of business.

If the federal government does not get really involved in this area to help the Government of Quebec deal with this problem, the closure of this plant will unfortunately make headlines in September. However, we will not hear about all the small businesses that will go under two, three or four months down the line, because of the government's inaction.

This problem reminds us somewhat of the Hyundai plant, this one located in Bromont. A few years back, governments invested money in this plant. A short time later, it shut down.

Need I remind hon. members that in 1987, governments gave GM a $220 million loan? This was a situation similar to that of Hyundai in Bromont. The company needed to pay only the interests till 2017. By then, the loan will be worth $2.6 billion.

GM cannot be said to be a very small or a small to medium size business. In 1987, GM's business and development plans must have provided the direction the company wished the auto industry would take in North America, in Canada and in Quebec in particular. A few years later, a company of that size announced the closing of the plant. The two levels of government will now have to pay about $10 million a year simply in interest on GM's loan. In 2017, the governments will recover the principal, which will then have reached a value of $2 billion.

Can we allow ourselves to give up when dealing with a company to which we gave a loan of $220 million? Need I remind that, during the first quarter of 2002, this company reported rather generous profits for the auto industry? Governments should examine closely loans given in the automotive sector or elsewhere to companies that, two, three, four or five years down the road decide to pack up and leave. One of the conditions of the $220 million loan was to guarantee the vitality and the survival of the plant at least until 2017. This is almost four years later and we have already known for a year that the plant will close.

Even if the parliamentary secretary of the industry minister or the minister himself tell us that the government is very much concerned by what is going on in Quebec, I asked myself a question this morning. If the industry minister or his parliamentary secretary were to come to Quebec to check up on an a sector of economic activity in which the federal government had invested for the last 5, 10, 15 or 20 years, in order to meet the employees who benefited from the federal government's grants, loans or programs, I wonder what type of industry or business the minister would visit.

I thought to myself, “If the minister were to visit Ontario, he would tour the auto industry”. The federal government has invested billions, even tens of billions of dollars in the auto industry. The Minister of Industry would be fully justified in meeting with stakeholders in the auto industry to tell them, “I helped this industry to succeed. I am happy to come and meet with you, to look into the financial and economic situation of your industry. I am proud of what we have done in Ontario for the auto industry”. In Quebec, I wonder what industry he would tour.

If he went to Alberta, he could see oil workers. He could say to them, “We are proud of the tens of billions of dollars that we invested to develop the oil sector, to develop this polluting fossil fuel energy that is making us back off from signing the Kyoto protocol. The federal government is proud of having invested tens of billions of dollars to develop this growth sector of Alberta's economy, making it a prosperous province. We feel somewhat responsible for this success”.

If he were to come to Quebec to visit with people in the hydroelectric industry, sadly he would not be able to pat himself on the back and say, “We helped with this success”. The Government of Quebec alone made it the wonderful success story that it is for Quebec.

If he were to go to the Maritime provinces, the Minister of Industry could visit with people who have benefited directly or indirectly from Hibernia. He would say to them, “With the tens of billions of dollars that we have invested in oil exploration and drilling, we are proud of what our government has accomplished in the Maritimes, mainly in Newfoundland, because tens of thousands of jobs have been created thanks to the billions of dollars invested by the federal government”.

If he were to visit Hydro-Québec to look into new energy sources, the electric motor or the electric drive, he would appear to be a bit of an outsider. He has not made any direct investments there.

The federal government has demonstrated its lack of will and lack of leadership in Quebec's auto industry. Worse yet, the federal government has shown that it has no desire to develop a growth industry in Quebec. The federal government in Quebec can only be seen where it is required to have a presence: an employment office, a post office, a passport office. Otherwise, it is not there.

Why is the federal government present in those offices? Because it has no choice. I challenge any liberal member who will speak later on to tell me in which area of economic activity the federal government has poured massive support in Quebec and to which it can be identified.

The Quebec government is the only one present in the area of high technology, in hydroelectricity, in health and in the pharmaceutical industry, except for pharmaceutical patents.

That is why the former health minister never came to Quebec. He started pulling the plug on health funding in Quebec when he was minister. He will not come to Quebec as industry minister either because he has no reason to do so. The federal government has not invested in Quebec and is showing, once again today, that it has no intention of taking tangible measures to improve the situation in a fundamental area of economic activity, and to save the jobs of those thousand employees who have been working in that industry for many years.

When they say they will create jobs for university graduates, they should also think of those who left school after grade 12 or junior college and who are looking for well-paying jobs. Not everyone who is looking for a job has a bachelor's or master's degree.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his excellent speech. He is directly involved, because people in his riding work at the Boisbriand plant.

I come from the Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière area and I also feel concerned, as does the member for Charlevoix, because there are several subcontractors in our regions, particularly in Beauce. This also shows how important a large job creating business can be in other sectors.

As the member for Laurentides mentioned earlier, it is all well and good for GM to say that jobs from subcontracting will be maintained in Quebec, but if there is no large business acting as the drive force and raison d'être for subcontractors, this will have dramatic consequences.

I pointed out earlier that the level of insecurity for GM workers was high. The same is true for workers of a shipyard in my riding. This is why I want to show solidarity with the members from the Basses-Laurentides region.

I am so involved, and I do not know if all the members are, that I will share a personal anecdote with the House. I have bought a GM car, precisely to show how important this is. But if GM were ever to go—this is not a threat, and is not intended as one either—it would be unfortunate. However, I consider this as a proof of solidarity.

I would like to congratulate the hon. member for his work and ask him to elaborate further on the impetus large businesses give small businesses.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope you also drive a GM.

We all know how hard the member worked in connection with Davie Shipbuilding and how the financial health of a major industry in a region can have a definite direct and indirect impact on smaller businesses. It can affect all the businesses around the industry.

If the government were to ask me “What would you have done if you had been in office?”, I would say, as I said earlier, that the federal government has totally ignored this particular economic sector. Yes, it has been sprinkling money, $5 million for this and $10 million for that, because it does not have any other choice. It has to. Statistically, about 20% of the funding should go to Quebec. We always end up being the losers, be it in R and D or any other sector. But, in this area, the federal government has to get involved and it does. That is what I would have been told. However, had the government party asked me how we would have dealt with this issue, I would have said that the private sector can be relied upon.

We know that Quebec has a nice environmental record and we know also that Canada has a bad one. Why does the federal government not tell the Quebec government “We will co-operate with you. We will work together, in the auto industry in Boisbriand for example, to find renewable energies and recyclable energies”.

Why do we not invest $10 million, $100 million or $500 million in research and development to find an alternative to fossil energies, to polluting energies?

Why are we not providing financial support to Hydro-Québec for the development of its wheel-motor?

Why are we not helping this west coast industry—I was looking for its name this morning, but I have not found it yet—that is working on a renewable fuel cell for the automobile?

Why are we not working with those who are presently trying to develop cleaner fuel? For example, why are the federal government and the Quebec government not working at developing less polluting, cleaner vehicles?

I think that if the federal government was willing to act, to take action, it could, with the co-operation of the Quebec government, develop innovative energies, forward looking businesses, businesses that would allow Quebec to continue to be a leader in a major sector of economic activity, such as the auto industry.

Let us look at the Middle East crisis. We can see how important oil is to the western economy. Why are we not trying to become more self-sufficient, less dependent on oil exporting countries? In this way, we could develop our autonomy, our independence, a promising and positive sector of activity.

I am convinced that, with a little goodwill and imagination, we would succeed. Instead, ministers visit GM businesses and come back saying “There is nothing we can do for now; their leaders do not want to co-operate with us”. I find this is letting our guard down too quickly.

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa) (Francophonie)]

Mr. Speaker, since we are talking about Quebec's investments with Ottawa, first I would like to remind my hon. colleague that last Monday we made a joint announcement with the Quebec premier in the riding of his colleague for Verchères--Les-Patriotes.

The Government of Canada is investing $6 million and the Government of Quebec is investing $6 million as well in what is called nanostructure, nanotechnology in microtechnology. Such cooperation is obvious in many sectors. It cannot be To say that Quebec is always investing alone and that the federal is absent is simply not true.

Going back to the GM issue we are concerned with, in my riding of Brome--Missisquoi, SaarGummi, a firm that gets a lot of sub-contracts from GM, is presently seeing an increase in the number of its employees. We absolutely must continue, as my colleagues said, in order to get as many jobs as possible, keep them and develop that sector. Well, we are there now.

I would like to hear the hon. member for Repentigny comment on that.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as you can see, therein lies the problem. They are patting themselves on the back for having invested $6 million in Quebec. My reaction is: what about the more than $10 billion for Hibernia, the more that $60 billion in Alberta for oil, and several billion dollars in Ontario for the auto industry, compared with $6 million in Quebec? The hon. member replied to my remarks.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will most certainly pursue this debate on the part the federal government must play in a discussion as important as this on the closure of the Boisbriand GM plant. As the member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel, I am able to state that one third of the Boisbriand plant workers live in my riding. I will therefore debate what the government's commitment to this must be.

The plant's production figures, the figures on the way the men and women of Quebec who work there make GM's investments across North America cost-effective, have been set out very well by my colleague, the hon. member for Laurentides, who is our labour critic. The efficiency of the Boisbriand plant is no longer open to question. It is the most productive of all GM plants in North America. The cost per employee is the lowest in Canada. GM therefore has no quibble with the productivity of Quebec workers.

If productivity is not at issue, our audience in Quebec and in Canada will wonder why the GM plant is being closed. Why are businesses being opened across Canada, and why are some being closed? Decisions are often political. That is the hard truth of the matter. That is what it comes down to today for the workers of Quebec.

I will quote from some newspaper articles. First, however, I would like hon. members to keep an important date in mind: September 6, 2001. This is when the Secretary of State for Regional Development in Quebec, now Minister of Justice, and an MP for Quebec, visited the GM facilities in Ontario, along with then Minister of Industry, Brian Tobin. During their visit to the Ontario facilities, they met with GM executives, on that date of September 6, 2001. After that meeting, the Secretary of State for Regional Development in Quebec, now Minister of Justice, announced to the people of Quebec that nothing more could be done for GM.

The following morning, in some erudite explanations to the media, he stated as follows. I am quoting from interviews he gave, including one with La Presse :

I do not see what federal programs could be used for this purpose.

He was of course referring to programs to get GM going again.

At most, there might be the Technology Partnership Canada program, which has been used by Bombardier for more than a decade, but that would have to be looked into. We are going to push to have the plant kept open. There are more than 1,000 good jobs at stake.

That is what the secretary of state for regional economic development in Quebec said following a meeting with GM representatives. He is the one who announced the closing of the plant to the people of Quebec. A few days later, the President of GM Canada announced that production at GM Boisbriand would end in September 2002. That is the reality.

We are being told today that the Government of Canada does not or did not have a say. However, it did announce the decision on September 6, 2001. That is the hard reality. It is the Liberal government, though its representatives, members of parliament from Quebec, who met with GM executives and who, after the meeting, announced the decision to close the plant. It is the secretary of state for regional economic development in Quebec, who is now the Minister of Justice, who announced that nothing could be done to save the plant.

I am sorry, but this announcement was made after a visit of GM facilities in Ontario by the person who was then the industry minister, Mr. Tobin. That is the reality. He announced the bad news because that was good for his career. He is today Minister of Justice. He announced the bad news to Quebecers. That is the harsh reality because, on that side, all the members from Quebec are going after a career here. They are building their careers on the backs of Quebecers. Today, Quebec's members of parliament are saying, “The Government of Canada did all it could to save the GM plant in Boisbriand”. No, it did not.

They were the bearers of bad news. That is what they did. They came to Quebec to tell us the bad news concerning the GM plant in Boisbriand.

This is why I am saying today that the Bloc Quebecois' message is simply to tell the leader of the government, who is an MP from Quebec, that if he follows the logic of the comments he made during the election campaign, when he said that the auto industry was to Ontario what the aeronautical and aerospace industry was to Quebec—25% of aerospace manufacturing is done in Ontario—then he must see to it that Quebec has a 25% share of the auto industry.

The leader of the government must be the spokesperson on this issue on behalf of all Quebecers and on behalf of the Quebec auto industry. That is the reality.

Earlier, we heard about $6 million in investments and a few hundreds jobs. In auto manufacturing, there are eight jobs for each job created in an assembly plant. That is the reality.

Despite the fact that we buy 28% of all GM cars sold in Canada and 25% of all cars sold in the country, as of September 2002, this government will have let the vehicle assembly sector disappear in Quebec. That is the reality.

That is what Quebecers must expect. They must remember that, on September 6, 2001, the secretary of state responsible for regional economic development in Quebec—

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Martin Cauchon.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

He is now the Minister of Justice, because he had a promotion for what he did on September 6, 2001. That is the reality. Today, MPs from Quebec must rectify this situation. They must—

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Martin Cauchon.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order please. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, on a point of order.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am extremely respectful of the debates. Of course, we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we have freedom of speech.

However, I believe there is a lack of decorum on the part of the member for Charlevoix who, every time the member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel refers to the Minister of Justice, calls out his name.

I believe he should withdraw his comments.

[The Deputy Speaker]

To begin with, I respectfully submit that this is not a point of order. However, the rules are clear: a member is not allowed to refer to a colleague by his or her name, but rather by the name of his or her riding or by his or her title. I hope we can raise the level of the debate.

The hon. member for Argenteuil--Papineau--Mirabel.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all this to say that Quebecers should not let themselves be fooled by the Liberal government into believing that they have nothing to do with a business decision at GM Canada.

The multinationals of this world take no business decisions without consulting governments. This is a fact. And this is what happened on September 6, 2001, when the Minister of Industry of Canada, Mr. Brian Tobin, and the secretary of state responsible for the development of Quebec—