Debates of April 25th, 2002

Points of Order

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I note there is some controversy in the media about my singing different lyrics to O Canada and there may even be some concern among members in the House as to the appropriateness of what I did.

I wish to put on record that in retrospect I probably should have confined myself to arguing for the more inclusive language which I hope some day will come to pass. I did not mean any disrespect for our national anthem. If I have offended anyone, I offer my sincere apologies.

Petitions

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of tabling a petition that calls on the federal government to officially recognize the 1915 to 1922 genocide which resulted in the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians.

The petition designates April 24 as the day of commemoration of the Armenian genocide. In accordance with the UN convention and the prevention and repression of genocide acts it condemns attempts to negate the genocide. The purpose is to develop understanding, heal wounds and promote friendship among all Canadians in accordance with the Canadian tradition of promoting human rights, peace and the rule of law in international affairs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to present a petition that I had signed by about 60 people yesterday.

The petitioners are asking the government to support Taiwan's legitimate request to be admitted as an observer at the annual general meeting of the World Health Organization, which will be held on May 14, 2002, in Geneva.

The fact that Taiwan is an important tourism and business destination that receives 10 million travelers a year makes it more vulnerable to epidemics. At the same time, that state—since it is not a country—has developed an expertise in the area of vaccination, particularly against hepatitis B.

For these reasons, we are asking the government to follow up on various statements and to recognize Taiwan at the WTO.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and privileged to present a petition signed by a great number of Canadians who are concerned about the rising incidence of fetal alcohol syndrome in our society. They want to see action taken with respect to prevention of this devastating syndrome.

The petitioners call upon parliament to enact a motion that was passed a year ago for labels on all alcohol beverage containers. They call upon parliament to mandate the labelling of alcoholic products to warn pregnant women and other persons of certain dangers associated with the consumption of alcoholic beverages.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition signed by thousands of first nations citizens in the province of Manitoba.

The petitioners reject the first nations governance initiative put forward by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. They suspect it to be nothing more than a thinly veiled effort to either extinguish or diminish their treaty rights. They point out further that the minister's consultation process has been a sham and they serve notice that they will present more names on these petitions than the minister did in his consultation process.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Privilege

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to the private member's area, specifically adjournment proceedings.

On Tuesday, April 23, I was given notice that there was an adjournment proceeding to be dealt with in the House on Tuesday evening, brought forward by the member for Battlefords--Lloydminster. I was advised on the morning of the 23rd that the member approached the private members' office to ask that the question be dealt with that very night.

As is the case with all adjournment proceedings, parliamentary secretaries are required to properly prepare to respond to the matters being raised by hon. members on a current basis, and I did that.

The member in question was in the House for votes that evening which took place after government orders and then private members' business followed by one hour. Following that it was the order of the House to deal with adjournment proceedings. The member did not show up for those adjournment proceedings.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

My hon. colleague has referred to the fact that this specific member was absent. He knows full well that he cannot say that in the House.

On the other hand, on the question of privilege itself, it is not up to the Chair to manage a member's time or even his or her presence in the House. Therefore, I do not think the member has a question of privilege, but if he wanted to make a statement, he has.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one of the significant points of privilege members can raise is that their ability to do their job has been interrupted or interfered with. I was here to do my job and the table did not advise--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order, please. I do not think the Chair has to listen to the fact that one member can pass judgment on another member's carrying out of his or her duties. I think the member is carrying it a bit far. I suggest the member take it up personally with the member for Battlefords--Lloydminster by giving him a call or meeting with him personally. This should be the end of the question of privilege.

[Rick Casson, Canadian Alliance, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe what the member opposite is raising is a question of privilege. You have already dealt with the issue and that is the end of it. If he continues to raise this, the issue is between him and another member and it should be dealt with that way. The time being wasted in the House is inappropriate.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my point has to do with the table. My privilege item is basically that the table did not give me notice of a change in the orders of the day that required me to be here at a particular time.

The rules with regard to the particular item we are talking about is that everyone has a responsibility. This has happened far too often and I believe it is up to the table officers to advise a member when a matter on the adjournment proceedings is cancelled so the member can make arrangements to do other work.

I have raised this as a question of privilege because my ability to do my job was interfered with because the table failed to do its job. It was unfair to me as a member and in fact is unfair to all members.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am advised by the clerk that indeed the table was notified that the hon. member would not be present. The clerk, and the Chair for that matter, also acknowledge that the hon. member should have been notified so he would not have had to wait for an hour to make his presentation. We will investigate the matter and get back to the hon. member.

Supply

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

moved:

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.

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes.

The issue of the General Motors plant in Boisbriand is a priority. It is as labour critic that I will address the House today. We have known for a long time that there is a problem at the plant. Now the company is threatening to shut it down by September 2002. The reason we decided to raise this issue on an opposition day is to prompt the government to take action on this immediately, before the Quebec auto industry disappears completely. I do not mean to be alarmist, but the industry has been present in Quebec for 37 years. This particular plant is the largest in the province.

Since I have only ten minutes, my colleagues will take over when I am done. However, I will try to give a brief overview of the situation. I hope that, today, we will have a chance to shed some light on this issue and to try our best to find solutions so that the GM plant does not shut down in September 2002.

I must state at the outset that the Bloc Quebecois unreservedly supports the FTQ and its affiliated union, the Canadian Auto Workers or CAW, in their fight to save the Boisbriand plant. If the Boisbriand assembly plant disappears, 1,400 direct jobs will disappear along with it. As well, there are another 9,000 or so indirect jobs with subcontractors, particularly the GM suppliers in the Beauce, the Outaouais, the Eastern Townships and southwestern Montreal, all at risk of closure as well.

The Boisbriand plant manufactured 74,967 vehicles in 2000, which is 7.75% of the total Canadian production. It has even been cited as a model plant for all other GM plants worldwide.

In 1987, Quebec and Ottawa made a $220 million loan to GM, with a 30 year term, that is until 2017. The preferential rate of interest at the time was 9.5%. The long term financing of this loan coasts GM a good $20 million annually in interest charges to Quebec and Ottawa. The costs are shared fifty-fifty. Quebecers have paid for this loan to GM through their various taxes, and will continue to do so.

The main condition attached to the loan at the time was that the company maintain a minimal level of activity at Boisbriand, which it obviously has not. Moreover, GM is not required to pay back any of the capital before the due date of 2017. Canada—which means almost exclusively Ontario—has always been among the major beneficiaries of investments in the auto industry, but not a single dollar in investments has been announced for Quebec in the first six months of 2001. During the previous two quarters, Ontario had ranked second in investments behind the United States. Various investments of several hundred million dollars each had been announced, particularly by GM in Oshawa, totalling $300 million, by Daimler Chrysler in Windsor, and by Toyota in Cambridge .

This closure represents a major loss for the region and confirms the resounding failure of federal policy. No attempt whatsoever was even made to influence the location of Canada's auto industry. While Quebec and the city of Boisbriand were frantically making representations to GM headquarters to save their plant, the federal government settled for doing the bare minimum.

The Bloc Quebecois will see to it that Ottawa answers for its lack of leadership and concern for the situation of the Boisbriand workers.

Far from representing what is called the economy of the past, today's auto industry is the envy of countries from all around the world. It is one of the greatest users of computer technology and robotics; it uses the most advanced system technologies and material sciences and employs highly qualified workers and also engineers. We have been fighting for a long time to save the GM plant, and unions have done an absolutely extraordinary work to this end.

I myself took part in a demonstration by GM employees, with several of my colleagues representing the region, including the hon. members for Terrebonne—Blainville and Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, who are concerned with this problem.

Let us not forget that these employees work in high technology. They make good salaries. So, not only 1,400 direct jobs, but also almost 10,000 indirect jobs will be totally lost. This makes no sense whatsoever. The whole Quebec auto industry is declining. For years, investments have been made in Ontario. Millions and millions of dollars have been spent on new plants in Ontario, and Quebec has always been left out.

Now that we are in dire straits, Canada is not supporting us. We need its help; we need our money, which we are sending it anyway. It should give it back to where it is necessary. We do not want to go through a second Mirabel in the region.

Mirabel has really hurt. Who salvaged it? It is the Quebec government, by making it a duty free zone. We are slowly salvaging the white elephant that Mirabel was to the federal government. It is the Liberals who messed up. Today, Mirabel is regaining momentum, through hard work, because the Quebec government decided to take steps to save the region.

The Quebec government has done its share. It has invested in the upgrading of the plant. It has always been present, but now the ball is in the federal government's court.

The justice minister was in Detroit. He met with the GM management. He did nothing to obtain some developments on the issue. He simply said “I do not know what program could work in this instance”. That is not what we need to hear. We need to hear that there will be some positive, real and immediate action taken because September 2002 is only a few months away. Once the plant is closed, reopening it will be impossible and nothing will convince me of the contrary.

GM even threatened to dismantle the plant. This makes no sense whatsoever. We pay, we give money to the government to build a plant and the owners will now dismantle the building and move it elsewhere. This is rubbish. We cannot allow such a thing.

We must send people to Detroit. The federal government must wake up, send ministers and lobbyists to Detroit and see to it that they negotiate some arrangement with GM in order to save the plant so it can stay in Quebec. It is just unthinkable that there would no longer be an auto industry in Quebec. Once again, the federal government will show how utterly useless it is. This is unacceptable.

I raise the issue of Mirabel again because it is an issue that has been very important. Air Transat, which flew out of Mirabel, is now moving to Dorval. Once again, we are dealing with a hot potato. Why? Because the federal government has not kept its promises.

This issue needs to be raised, discussed in the House, we need to talk about it and the government needs to take real action on the matter. And it must not try to pull the wool over our eyes. The government has the money. There is a surplus. We have a surplus of billions of dollars. We are able to invest, to come to an agreement with GM to keep the plant open. The Boisbriand plant will close, period. It is one of the five most productive plants in the world.

When it was time to get this plant in order, when it came time for employees to improve production, they did it. The employees set to work. They held up their end of the bargain. Management was satisfied with the results. Now, they are going to say, “No way, it has got to go”. We know how this industry operates. It lobbies, and it lobbies hard.

I do not have much time to go into all of the repercussions of this on employees. However, it is not hard to imagine the impact this is having on the workers. When, over a period of five years, employees are told that they will lose their jobs the following year, it puts constant pressure on them, and they do not need to deal with that.

Today, I am calling for a serious debate on this issue. The government needs to roll up its sleeves and act, to do what it has to do, live up to its responsibilities and ensure that the GM plant in Boisbriand stays open.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a point in relation to this important debate today. Is this not what happens when political instability is created by the Bloc and by the premier of the province of Quebec who are intent on separating from Canada? These decisions are made by corporations. When there is political insecurity business will flow out of the province. This is not unusual. It has happened in the past.

If economic activity is to occur in the province would it not be incumbent upon the member and her party to talk to Premier Landry? He has not moved away from the idea of separation. There is still a cloud of uncertainty in the province of Quebec.

When corporations, like General Motors, decide to leave that is their decision. The Bloc members cannot come to the House of Commons intent on only accepting the best of what Canada has to offer. When some of this backfires on them, they conveniently look for someone to blame. In this case they are conveniently looking at the federal government. Are these not decisions made by corporations? Political instability is one of the factors that leads corporations to make these decisions in terms of--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. member for Laurentides.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is 2002. With all due respect, nobody has ever refused to sell a car to a separatist. Business is business.

The aluminum company Alcan stayed in Quebec, and it has really prospered. Bombardier is in Quebec. This has nothing to do with separation. It is a question of economics and the government refuses to admit it. It is hiding behind the aspirations of Quebec to nationhood. It has nothing to do with it.

It is a business decision, an economic decision. We want to keep Quebec's auto industry. It is now the federal government's turn to help us keep this industry.

The Quebec government has done its share. The federal government should now give us a hand. It is helping Ontario and should help us too.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for bringing the motion to the House today. She has asked for a substantive debate on this issue, which is very good, but looking at the auto industry in general, although it is concentrated in Ontario and Quebec, what specifically would she propose to ensure that the auto industry continues to grow and remain healthy across Canada? Is she proposing tax reductions or government assistance?

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the auto industry is concentrated in Ontario, not in Quebec. That is quite clear.

The federal government should sit down with the industry and discuss mid-term and long-term solutions. It is not for me to make a decision. There will be discussions and negotiations.

But what we really need are solutions that will keep this industry going over the mid-term and the long-term, and not short-term solutions from year to year. This is not the kind of industry you can deal with on a short-term basis. We should keep developing it. The industry is heavily concentrated in Ontario, but its development in other regions should go on. We have the opportunity to do it in Quebec. We should keep this industry going, and the federal government should do its share.

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

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, one could wonder what the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is doing in this debate.

I am speaking up by solidarity because the situation the hon. member for Laurentides is describing, and I commend her for her speech, is somewhat similar to the one that the Davie shipbuilding people are going through. They have known insecurity for a long time and we are aware of the many problems that employees may experience, both individually and collectively.

I would like her to have the opportunity to expand on that point.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer briefly because I know I have little time left and I want my colleagues to have the opportunity to speak.

When in an industry the continued production of some goods is unsure, that certainly causes an uncontrollable situation and the industry is danger. Some stability has to be maintained.

As I said, government officials must sit at the table and get involved in the issue. They must go to Detroit to meet with GM. They will have our support and full cooperation.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the Bloc Quebecois critic on industry, science and technology, I am pleased to take part in this debate on an issue that is of great concern.

I notice that the Minister of Industry is in the House right now and he will probably take part in this debate in a few moments. I am anxious to hear what the minister, who is a member from Ontario, will have to say, since this issue is not only about the loss of jobs in Quebec, at the GM plant in Boisbriand. It is not only about the closure of the Boisbriand plant as such; it is also about the disappearance of the vehicle assembly sector in Quebec.

It must be understood that Canada's auto industry is primarily concentrated in Ontario. There is only one assembly plant outside Ontario. That plant is located in Quebec and it could be closed as early as next September.

As we speak, the Bloc Quebecois leader is holding a press conference in the presence of the Mayor of Boisbriand, Robert Poirier, the director of the Travailleurs unis de l'automobile du Québec, Luc Desnoyers, the president of the union at the Boisbriand GM plant, Sylvain Demers, and our Bloc Quebecois colleagues from the Laurentians.

Incidentally, it is no coincidence if the whole Laurentians region is represented by Bloc Quebecois members. This is because, considering what happened in Mirabel and what is going on in Boisbriand, the residents of that region are well aware that this government is letting them down. These people know that they will be well protected by Bloc Quebecois members.

I am taking this opportunity to thank and congratulate my colleagues for Terrebonne—Blainville, for Laurentides—the hon. member who proposed today's motion—, for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, and also our former Bloc Quebecois colleagues who sat in the House and who represented that region, namely Maurice Dumas and Paul Mercier, for all the work that they accomplished regarding Mirabel, of course, but also the GM plant.

Here is a brief historical background on the GM plant in Boisbriand. It was founded in 1965, the year of the Auto Pact. Boisbriand began its operations with almost one thousand employees. In 1979, their number had increased to 4,400 but two years later there were massive layoffs and the future of the plant looked rather grim.

In 1986, GM ordered the Boisbriand plant to reduce its production costs, otherwise it would have to close it down. Unionized employees agreed to many compromises to save the plant, which would become one of the most efficient car assembly lines in North America.

I believe this aspect must absolutely be taken into consideration in the present circumstances considering the fallacious arguments used to justify the plant's closing, supposedly because there were no new models to be built at Boisbriand.

The president of GM Canada herself admitted that the Boisbriand plant was one of the most productive of GM's plants worldwide. In those circumstances, what can justify the closing of the Boisbriand plant if not obscure considerations? I will come back to that later.

My colleague from Laurentides has explained well the economic impact the closing of GM's plant in Boisbriand would have on the Laurentides region. More than 10,000 direct and indirect jobs would be lost, not only in Laurentides but also in the Beauce, the Outaouais, the Eastern Townships and in the southwest of Montreal. Those jobs could be lost due to the closing of sub-contracting plants or businesses resulting from the closing of the GM plant. Ten thousand jobs could be lost in Quebec because of decisions more or less easy to understand, more or less vague.

The member for Laurentides also mentioned the financial impact this decision will have on taxpayers in Quebec and Canada. In 1987, the governments of Quebec and Canada agreed to give GM an interest free loan of $220 million over 30 years, until 2017.

At the time, the prime lending rate was 9.5%, representing annual costs of $20 million for the governments of Quebec and of Canada. These are substantial amounts. My colleague, the member for Laurentides, pointed out that the sine qua non for this loan at the time was that GM would have to continue minimal operations at Boisbriand, a condition it is obviously not meeting. I am anxious to hear what the Minister of Industry tells us about GM's failure to meet this condition concerning the Boisbriand plant.

Are we getting doublespeak from the federal government and GM? I think so, because the federal government contributed generously to the establishment of the auto industry in Ontario. It contributed generously to the development of fossil fuel sources in Canada's provinces, leaving Quebec to develop its hydroelectric industry, a green industry if ever there was, on its own. The federal government cut off funding for the Varennes Tokamak, which was working on developing another possible source of green energy. In the circumstances, we are not surprised to see the government so reluctant to sign the Kyoto protocol.

Are we also getting doublespeak from GM? I think so, because GM turned down an offer from Quebec in 1999. In 1999, Quebec offered backing of up to $360 million on condition that GM and its suppliers make massive investments and build a modular assembly plant in Boisbriand. Amazingly, GM turned down this offer from the government.

It is also important to point out—my colleague mentioned this—that GM made record profits during the first quarter of 2002. GM's profits have apparently gone up by 146%. This is not negligible. The company made $791 million U.S., or the equivalent of $1.39 U.S. per share, compared to $320 million U.S. for the same quarter last year, or about 50 cents U.S. per share. GM therefore posted record profits during the first quarter. What is the explanation for plant closures under circumstances such as these?

Moreover, it is also important to point out that—and my colleague made reference to the investments that were made by leading auto manufacturers throughout the world—Quebec seems to be the only place in the world where these auto manufacturers, and GM in particular, do not want to invest. GM made massive investments in Tennessee, Portugal, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Lansing, Russia, England and Spain. So, investing is not a problem for GM. We find it hard to understand why it cannot come up with a new model to build in Boisbriand, particularly considering that in March, GM announced its decision to resume production of the Pontiac GTO. Why not build it in Boisbriand?

We find it hard to understand GM's decisions. This is all the more difficult to understand since, on April 5, we learned that GM was about to announce the addition of a third shift at its plant in Oshawa, which would create 1,000 new jobs. This new shift would begin on July 1 and increase the number of employees at the Oshawa plant from 3,500 to 4,500. GM could call back up to 500 workers who were laid off in Oshawa, St. Catherines or Boisbriand.

We are concerned and we wonder about the reasons given by GM to close this plant. As for the government, it only paid lip service when the time came to support GM workers, that is when the previous Minister of Industry travelled to Detroit with his colleague, who was then the Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec. In reality, they said “We do not really know what we are going to do. Be that as it may, we will do everything we can until the last minute”. But since then, the federal government has not done anything at all.

In conclusion, what we expect from the government is that the Prime Minister will get personally involved. We hope that the government will drag its feet next spring when the automobile industry will ask for a 5% tax credit for this and an another 5% tax credit for that. We hope that the government will show its reluctance to do so, in order to save the GM plant in Boisbriand.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like the Bloc members to answer a question about the political instability in Quebec that is created by their group in the House of Commons. As every economist will tell us, businesses get nervous when they hear jurisdictions in any country talk about separation. Bloc members must talk honestly and openly about that fact.

Let us examine the automobile industry and the strategic plans of the Ford Motor Company a number of years ago to invest in Canada rather than Mexico. It did so because of political instability in Mexico and the fluctuating value of the peso. One never invests in an economy where there is no financial security or political stability. Bloc members must talk about that and about Premier Landry's intention to separate Quebec from Canada.

This ties into the free trade agreement which is important for the automobile industry. Without us Quebec does not have a free trade agreement.