Debates of April 25th, 2002

Supply

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Windsor--St. Clair for splitting his time with me in this debate on the Bloc motion. I would also like to thank the Bloc Quebecois for the motion it has put to the House today. That motion brings about a debate on the situation of auto workers at the Boisbriand plant.

It is sad to be speaking in this House about the lack of leadership shown by the federal government on the issue of the workers at the General Motors plant in Boisbriand.

During the 1990s, Canada has become a world leader in the sector of final vehicle assembly and production of auto parts. That success led to the creation of over 35,000 jobs in the Canadian auto industry.

In 1999, Canada had made a record number of 3.1 million new vehicles with a trade surplus of $28 billion. Those good years will soon be gone at the end of this year. From then on the situation of the Canadian auto industry has steadily worsened, with the resulting layoff next September of over 1,400 employees at the GM plant in Boisbriand, Quebec.

It is to deal specifically with these layoffs that I am rising today. We are talking about 1,400 jobs in the auto industry. It may be said that each full time job in Canada allows for the creation of three more jobs elsewhere in the community, $25 to $30 an hour jobs, and even more with overtime. These are important jobs for Canadians and for Quebecers.

That the federal government takes no leadership on this issue is unacceptable. But where is our government right now? Certainly not on this earth!

We have not heard from the federal government during that period. When my colleagues would regularly rise in the House of Commons, asking the government to take action to help these thousands of workers, the government would repeat the same story over and over, saying that Canada's economic fundamentals are positive and the industry will recover.

It is not with an optimistic government that this industry will recover. I call this a head in the sand approach, a want to hear and see nothing approach. This is exactly what this government is doing.

It cannot govern the country while having its head in the sand. Whether such a situation is happening in Newfoundland, Ontario or Nunavut, this government should to respond for the citizens' welfare. It did not do so in this case.

The industry minister at the time had much bigger fish to fry to achieve his own political goals. That did not lead him very far either, because he is no longer with us today.

We talk about free trade. We know that free trade did not help in this case. It is for all these reasons that the NDP has always opposed free trade. The outflow of new North-American automobile investments to the South has weakened our auto industry.

When the free trade agreement was adopted, Electrolux had been established in Quebec for years. Since then, the company has moved to the United States. We have lost many other industries and I could give name. I had visited an area in southern Ontario where there were many factories. As soon as the FTA was signed, they all moved south. That is where the jobs went. Instead of an agreement ensuring fair trade, this agreement forces us to compete with the Americans or the Mexicans for jobs, benefits and wages.

How can we compete with countries paying their employees $2 or $3 an hour? How can we compete with such countries? That is free trade, the type that benefits other countries.

Let us not forget that free trade was supposed to help raise the standard of living in Canada, not lower it. This is what free trade was supposed to do. This was the sales pitch of the government in office at the time and the opposition parties supportive of free trade.

Today, the Canadian Alliance says “No, let's cut taxes, let's cut taxes for big companies in order to create jobs”. I do not agree with that. Free trade killed the auto pact that gave work to Canadians and Quebecers.

However, in 1992 and 1993, as in 1988 and 1989, when the Liberals were in opposition, they were against free trade. Today, they are sticking their heads in the sand and refusing to face the problems that they have created for this country.

Whether in Quebec, in Windsor or in Oshawa, the auto industry is very important in this country, and we have let it down. The Liberals should be ashamed of themselves today. How can they stand in the House of Commons and defend this cause?

My suggestion to the Prime Minister of Canada would be to plan a mission to Detroit to meet with GM officials. Let him take his responsibilities once and for all for the good of Canadians. He has done so in quite a while, I would say. He has forgotten Canadians. He has forgotten his own people.

I have nothing against his missions to Africa or elsewhere, but he must not forget Canada. There are Canadian interests here as well. Hopefully, he has a little place in his heart, somewhere to the left, for Canadian workers and he will to something for their jobs and for their families, which are facing difficult times.

I come from a region with a 20% unemployment rate. In six or seven years, the Brunswick mine will shut down and people will suffer. What will the federal government do to help these people get organized and prepare for other work, so that their families will not suffer? Where was the federal government when mines shut down in Cape Breton? Like the proverbial ostrich, it buried its head in the sand, and let the families suffer.

In Boisbriand, Quebec, this is exactly what the federal government is doing. The federal government and the provincial governments of Quebec and Ontario should meet with GM to try and find solutions to save these jobs, and to bring back our jobs. We have courageous people, people willing to work, people who are not lazy, who are no slouch and who wish to earn a living, to be able to feed their families and pay for the education of their children.

Today, they are boasting about creating jobs left and right, which are paying minimum wage. But this they do not boast about. They do not wish to talk about such things. I find unacceptable that they should talk about creating thousands of jobs when we are loosing jobs paying $25 and $30 an hour.

I hope that the Primer Minister will hear about this, that he will be moved and that he will work for the good of all Canadians. That is my hope. It can happen.

When the government focuses on resolving regional problems, it can do it. It has to assume its responsibilities. It is important that this be done not only in Quebec, but in regions like New Brunswick and the Gaspé, where people suffer every day from the lack of jobs.

I hope there will be a mission in Canada, to get in touch with this country again and see the hardship caused by the cuts made everywhere, see those who are suffering and see to it that there is real job creation in rural areas of our beloved country, Canada.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the member for Acadie—Bathurst, as well as the previous speaker with whom he shared his time. They gave two excellent speeches that showed that people are not only concerned about the auto industry, but also about employment.

We are talking here about auto workers who are paid hourly wages. Should the Boisbriand plant shut down, 1,400 direct jobs would be affected, as well as many indirect jobs. It is inconceivable that this could happen in Quebec, where we produce electricity, where we produce aluminum, the metal of the future, and where we have highly skilled auto workers.

It is also unacceptable to see all the jobs that are being lost in the auto industry in our ridings. Ford dealerships—even though Ford builds its vehicles in Ontario, it is still in Canada—have difficulty expanding. Chrysler dealerships are also experiencing the same problems with regard to expansion, even though the situation seems to be getting better. And then there is GM. A few GM dealerships have had to close down in my riding.

During the same period, Toyota dealerships have been expanding. We see new Honda dealerships opening their doors or existing ones expanding. And there is also Volkswagen and Hyundai. We have to wonder whether the manufacturers of these imported vehicles are supported by other governments while our government is sitting idly by. It is doing nothing about softwood lumber issue and about the auto industry. Meanwhile, the popularity of the Liberal government is on the rise, as is the unemployment rate.

I would like to hear what the member for Acadie—Bathurst has to say about that.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. As he pointed out, other corporations feel they have a place here, in Canada.

Let us hope that GM, Ford or Chrysler decide to be more proactive and assume their responsibilities. Whether it be GM, Ford or Chrysler, these big companies have done business here in Canada and raked in billions of dollars. Why are they now letting the people of Canada down after making all this money? They also have a social responsibility.

This is a disgrace. To make a few bucks more, they are moving to the southern parts of North America. Why are they not staying in Canada to help the people here. They could provide jobs and benefit from our skilled workers, who are good people and potential buyers. As I said earlier, these are hard working people who do a good job of manufacturing world class cars. Why will these companies not act responsibly in this regard?

Here is how I would respond to my colleague. If Toyoto, Honda and all those other companies see Canada as a land of opportunity, why are the companies already doing business here deciding to move away? I do hope that these companies will agree to play a social role in Canada and come back here, so we can keep these jobs, instead of letting us down just to be able to make a few more bucks elsewhere.

Money is important, but so are people. It is also important to enjoy life. We should stop thinking only about money in the bank. We should try to see the more human side of things, to help the people with whom we share this great country.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will keep it short so that my colleague has time to answer. I congratulate him on his remarks. Even though we do not always agree, we do share the same respect for workers. Here is my question.

Does he not think that 1,400 well paid jobs, including management positions with big salaries, represent an even higher social cost if these people end up unemployed, with no future left? Is the social cost not higher than if we had the courage to go down there to settle the problem with GM once and for all?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague started by saying there are things we do not agree on.

Let me tell her we agree 99% of the time. There is one thing we clearly disagree on, and we will not delve into that today. Now is not the time.

I agree with my colleague. What is at issue here is not only 1,400 jobs at $25 or $30 an hour, but also three times that number of jobs in the community. There are other manufacturers, machine shops and all sorts of jobs that flow from the auto industry, in restaurants, stores, and so on. There are more than 1,400 jobs at stake. That is why the government, instead of turning these workers into EI or welfare recipients, should go down in Detroit and talk to GM to find a solution.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise and talk about this issue today because I have a history in the automotive business. That is how I earned my living for years. In fact I sold the Pontiac Firebirds produced in this factory from my own car dealership in Amherst, Nova Scotia, for several years.

I was interested while listening to the previous speaker and made a note that in my career as a car dealer I have sold Ford, General Motors and Fiat cars. My brother, who lives in Moncton and happens to be in town today, now sells Toyotas and Nissans and used to sell Mazdas. My other brother sold Honda motorcycles and my father sold Fords, Chryslers, Renaults, Volkswagens, Rolls-Royce, American Motors, Fiats, Peugeots, British Leyland, Jaguar and probably some others I have forgotten. I come from a long line of car dealers and our family is certainly steeped in the industry.

Today's motion raises an issue that is bigger than the car business or even the workers. It is the communities in Canada that will suffer because of federal government policies that help cause such things to happen. It is a big concern for me, especially since the last census came out and showed that there is an incredible migration from smaller communities to bigger communities, in fact to four specific communities: Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver.

When a plant like this closes the community really hurts. It affects everyone in the community. It affects small businesses. It affects the ability to maintain schools because the number of schoolchildren declines. When a large plant like this closes, it affects the ability to maintain health care and everything else. It has happened in my own riding several times. An international company closes a plant and leaves the community high and dry. The problem is that in the plant the workers quite often make $15, $25 or even $30 an hour and after the closing the replacement jobs pay perhaps $8 or $9 an hour.

In my province of Nova Scotia the amazing thing is that we often provide millions of dollars in incentives to bring in a call centre to replace a factory that we perhaps could have kept with a bit of effort. That effort is what should happen here. There should be some help to maintain this plant and make sure that it remains. It is a productive plant and it has built and builds a quality product. It is an international factory with internationally high standards.

Again, this issue really brings out the lack of long range thinking by the government in defending rural Canada as far as economic development goes and as far as other areas are concerned.

The last speaker from Acadie--Bathurst was very passionate in his speech. I looked up the last census. His riding has lost 5.3% of its population from 1996 to 2001. It is almost impossible to run a business when there is a population decline like that. It is very difficult for communities and municipalities to maintain infrastructure, schools and hospitals when there is such a decline.

What is amazing is that the province of Newfoundland has had an overall decline in population of 7%. Every single federal riding in Newfoundland has lost population, with declines in population as high as 12.1% in Burin--St. George's. The government is doing nothing to stop this incredible flow of people from the smaller communities to the major centres. If it does not do something there will be a huge price to pay, because eventually the transfer payments that some provinces do not like to make now will have to be a lot bigger.

The fact of the matter is that the people who are transferring around this country are usually younger people looking for opportunities when opportunities do not exist in areas of high unemployment. It is the young people, our future, who move from these communities to the major centres with big populations, like Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver.

The issue with this car plant in Quebec is just the tip of the iceberg as far as what is happening in the country is concerned and the government is doing nothing about it. The members on the other side are doing nothing about this. They are sitting there and allowing this to happen. There is no action.

The economic development programs have pretty much declined and disappeared. There are no clear economic development programs. There is no commitment to small communities. There is no commitment to economic development. There is no commitment to immigration, to an immigration policy that will provide immigration for all sectors of the country. There is no leadership on the government side. We will all pay a big price. The provinces that do not like making transfer payments now will be shocked when they see what happens in the future as our young people move away. These are the young people who would start small businesses. These are the young people who would end up hiring other people. These are the people who would buy houses and pay taxes. In many circumstances, they are gone now. That is what will happen in this city in Quebec where the plant is closing. People will leave and it will be very difficult for the community to maintain its significant position.

Again, in Nova Scotia, my home province, where we have had a significant decline in population in certain areas, within Nova Scotia the population drift is to the centre, Halifax, or the area around Halifax. The population in the riding of Bras d'Or--Cape Breton is down 7.6%. Young people are moving away to other areas, maybe Halifax, maybe Toronto or maybe Calgary. A lot of young people will not be there to maintain those communities in the future. They will not be there to build the houses, to pay the taxes, to buy the cars and to help the corner store operate. It will mean closure upon closure.

As well, the population in the constituency of Sydney--Victoria is down 6.2%. We can compare that to Alberta, which has had a population increase of 10%. People do not understand the impact of that population transfer. Again, it is young people. It is the best, strongest, most efficient, capable, productive people, the people who would raise families and start businesses. They are moving away from rural Canada and small communities to the major centres. These people are assets, huge assets, who are moving from small communities to major centres. It is a very scary situation.

In New Brunswick, only the centres around Fredericton and Moncton have not had a decrease in population. The rest are either very stagnant or the populations have decreased. Again, this is caused by a lack of economic development programs, a lack of any kind of a plan at all to help save a plant like the General Motors plant in Quebec that is about to close. The price will be enormous when that plant closes.

If the government is asked to intervene at the end of this process to try to provide some help, it will probably pour in $1 million or $2 million and try to get a call centre or something like that and replace the jobs with fewer jobs at half the wages. It is totally because of a lack of leadership by the Liberal government. It has allowed the economic development programs that were established over the years to dwindle, to be diluted and diminished and used for all kinds of other purposes, political and otherwise.

We certainly feel for the people in this community. It is not just the workers who will suffer. The entire community will suffer. I have seen this happen with my own eyes. The community will suffer. Small businesses in the area will suffer. The schools, the hospitals, the municipalities and everybody will have a hard time making ends meet when the plant closes because of the lack of that payroll going into the community and because of all of the other peripheral businesses that result from it.

I urge the government to rethink this whole thing, to look at the census that just came out which shows this incredible migration of young people to the major centres of our country and the major centres within our provinces. If we do not address this incredible migration, which is about economic opportunities, the young people cannot stay. If there are no economic opportunities, they will move. That is what we are talking about with this General Motors plant closing in Quebec. If those opportunities go, the young people will go with them.

I urge the government to rethink the whole issue of economic development and rethink the issue of how the migration of population will impact us as a country, us in the House, us as federal government. I urge the government to try to develop some innovative, imaginative, leadership thinking that will reduce the migration and keep the younger people in the small communities. Otherwise we will lose these small communities. They will dwindle and diminish and will not be able to survive.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before I ask for questions or comments, I would like some clarification from the hon. member for Cumberland--Colchester as to if in fact he was sharing his time with a colleague.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

No, I was not, Mr. Speaker.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really welcome this debate. I am glad to see that everybody is interested in this matter and recognizes that the government has to get down to work and is not doing so.

As I said previously, the Boisbriand area has already had to deal with the problem of Mirabel. This has affected us tremendously. Lots of people lost their jobs and the small neighbouring municipalities have had unbelievable financial problems. Mirabel was an important source of jobs, of well paying jobs. We have lost all that.

The Quebec government decided to create a duty free zone. However, this does not do much to solve the problem of an airport which is there but which is not being used, because the federal government made a mistake and decided to pass this hot potato on to the Quebec government.

We have a similar problem with Boisbriand. The Prime Minister has to accept to meet the people at GM and to sit down with them. As Prime minister, he has the power to negotiate something with the existing coalition and to submit the results to the corporation.

I would like my colleague to tell us if he agrees with that. Does he agree that the Prime Minister should, for once, take a firm stand and go to Detroit to meet with GM officials?

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly do think the Prime Minister should step in here. This is so important. It involves so many jobs. It will have such a huge impact on the community.

In all fairness, in my experience with this sort of thing, and I have experienced four or five significant plant closings in my own riding although none as big as this one, the only thing that works is a partnership effort from the municipality, the province and the federal government. They must make every single effort. If that plant closes, the jobs will never be replaced. They can never replace those jobs. Certainly I would recommend that the municipality and the provincial and federal governments just dig in their heels and say that they will not let that plant close, that they will do whatever it takes and work together as a partnership to defeat that decision.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Bras D'Or—Cape Breton, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly share the concerns of my colleague from Cumberland--Colchester. The fact is that there is a movement of young people from rural Canada into the urban centres. In Bras d'Or--Cape Breton we have certainly lost our share of young people.

Where I differ with my hon. colleague is that I see merit in some of the initiatives in recent years. We have been successful in some initiatives. In the last two years we have shown great growth in the Cape Breton area. We have been able to develop 4,000 new jobs. We have leveraged $300 million in corporate private investment. The unemployment rate has dropped from around 20% to just below 15% in the industrial Cape Breton area. There have been some positive things happening.

I do not share his pessimistic view about call centres. We see young people staying in the communities now, securing employment at the call centres at around $10 an hour but with health and dental benefits. Therefore I would ask my hon. colleague, does he not think that the call centres are making a contribution to local economies?

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do think that call centres play a key role in the local economy, but $10 an hour jobs do not replace jobs at $25 an hour. That is my point. If there is nothing else, call centres certainly do provide entry level jobs and good experience in the workplace for many people. They are a very valuable asset.

However, according to the last census, the member's riding lost 7.6% of its population. I do not think he can paint too bright a picture if it has lost 7.6% of its population. Maybe it has turned around in the last little while, but that is what is shown by the census that came out two or three weeks ago. This means that to hold its own a business in that riding has to really struggle compared to a business in Alberta, which has had a 10% increase in population. It does not have to do hardly anything right and it can increase its business. In that member's riding, with the population declining by 7.6%, a business has to increase its market share and cut expenses just to hold its own.

It is the same challenge for the municipal governments, the school boards and the health boards. I will bet that most of that 7.6% decline in population is young people. That means less people for the schools, which means less schools, less teachers and a smaller variety of teaching ability so, in effect, a poorer level of education than if those people would have stayed. Therefore, it is a crisis.

I do believe that it is a crisis. I hope every member will just look at the census to see what is happening in the country and try to influence the government to address the issue. It is a critical issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, one point I want to make is that union officials have told us and stressed the incredible level of productivity at that plant in Quebec. The quality is A-1 and good in terms of labour relations and so on. The point that I was making earlier is that there are other reasons why these sorts of things happen. I know the member touched on them, as have many members.

One thing I want to mention is the political instability of Quebec. Obviously the sense of separation from this country of ours, where we are part of the free trade agreement, creates huge benefits in the province of Quebec.

I think it is important for Premier Landry to go to Detroit, talk to the chief executive officers of Ford, General Motors and DaimlerChrysler, and explain what is going on in Quebec and give them a degree of comfort to continue employment in that province and in this country.

I sincerely believe there is a connection between what is going on with the separatists in Quebec and the decision by corporate giants to move out of that province. We have seen an evacuation from that province of many international companies. That is the reality and I am hoping the hon. member would address that.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first, the very distinguished member who spoke before me from New Brunswick Southwest has suggested that the quality in this factory is excellent, and it is. I sold those cars. When I was a Pontiac dealer we could not get enough. We would order 12 and maybe, if we were really lucky, we would get one, which just shows how the market has changed.

As to the question raised by the member up about political stability, no one, no business, no investor wants to invest in an area where there is political instability. If there is any question about political instability, investment goes somewhere else. It is really simple. If there is political instability in Quebec, and I am not qualified enough to know if there is political instability or not, money stays away.

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

Mr. Speaker, before his last reply, I was prepared to congratulate the hon. member for his speech, particularly his openness to the Bloc Quebecois proposal concerning this morning's motion. I am less thrilled about the response his colleague invites him to share in concerning stability.

I would like to remind hon. members of the Bombardier investments in Dublin, Ireland. This is not exactly a place one could describe as having the greatest political stability, yet its economy is growing at an amazing rate. This is now one of the leading countries in Europe as far as investments are concerned.

In the region of the hon. member, for whom I have the greatest respect, there is no problem of political instability, yet he himself reports there are economic problems. How, then, can he explain his colleague's question?

Despite the threatened loss of jobs at GM, this quarter saw Quebec in the lead in Canada as far as investments and job creation were concerned. In the hon. member's region, where there is no political instability, there are many problems. How can he explain this?

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments. I do agree with the Bloc motion. I often agree with Bloc members when I think they are right. When I think they are wrong, I disagree with them. It is not complicated for me. I am absolutely sure that all I said was that if there is political instability in an area, investors do not want to invest there. It is not complicated.

We can look at the example in Ireland. When it effectively had a war, there was no investment. Bombardier did not go there and I know auto plants closed. I remember De Lorean went there to build cars, which looked something like the cars they were going to build in Quebec. Because there was that political instability, the factory failed and closed. Now there is political stability and it is prospering.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak on the famous matter of the GM plant located in the riding of Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Before I start, I would like to salute your son, who is doing such a great job these days for the Montreal Canadiens.

I will be splitting my time with my colleague for Joliette.

I truly cannot understand why GM is closing its Boisbriand plant. As my colleague has just said, it is acknowledged as one of the most efficient, if not the most efficient, of GM's 30 North American plants.

I would remind hon. members that 96% of the vehicles assembled at the Boisbriand plant go directly to dealerships, thanks to the quality of the work done by the Canadian auto workers in my region, the CAW members as I will refer to them from now on.

I wish to inform those who are listening that, as we speak, all the plant equipment is being labelled and will be shipped to other GM plants in North America.

As for the Boisbriand paint plant, it will be relocated to Mexico. Let us remember that it was funded equally by Quebecers and Canadians with a 30 year interest free $220 million loan. The loan will come due in 2017. The former president of GM Canada told us at a press conference that she will repay these $220 million in 2017.

What disturbs me the most is the laxness of the federal government toward this situation. Besides the loss of 1,400 direct jobs and 6,600 indirect jobs, all our region will be dramatically affected. With the loss of the auto industry in Quebec, it is young Quebecers who are highly qualified for a specialized job who will pay the price.

Speaking about paying the price, the closing of such a huge plant will lead to considerable social costs: personal bankruptcies, family breakdowns, domestic violence, depression that might even lead to suicide. People who worked at the Boisbriand plant and who lost their jobs have committed suicide. I personally know some of them.

For the last two years, CAW people have met federal ministers time and again but they always refused to hear their grievances.

As soon as the closing of the GM plant in Boisbriand was announced, the Liberal government's total lack of interest in the employees' cause was obvious. It was obvious at the press conference in Boisbriand, in the town council room where Bernard Landry, then finance minister, and the current deputy prime minister, who was then industry minister, were present.

The latter paid lip service to the issue, proposing vague federal programs that might be available to help out GM. Bernard Landry, on the other hand, offered a detailed assistance plan by the government of Quebec to rescue the automotive industry in Quebec.

I think that this was the day the federal government decided to shut the file. As proof, I have all of the contacts made with Brian Tobin, which were not acted on.

Furthermore, labour representatives from the CAW in Boisbriand met with the former minister for Quebec, Mr. Gagliano, and with the minister for the regions at the time, who is now the Minister of Justice. The ministers were rather cavalier about the whole thing, saying “This is GM's decision, there is nothing we can do about it. It is not our problem”. They were like Pontius Pilate; they washed their hands of the whole thing.

None of the federal ministers, including the current Minister of Industry, have done a thing about the GM Boisbriand matter, nor have any of the federal Liberal members from Quebec. Look through the papers. Let us ask ourselves the question. Why such a lack of action, such lack of interest on the part of the federal government? Why?

I am sure that the Prime Minister has positioned his government on this issue by saying “Ontario has the auto industry, Quebec has the aerospace industry”. This is a quote from the Prime Minister.

If the Prime Minister wanted to be logical, Quebec would have 24% of the entire Canadian auto industry, not 5% as is now the case, because Ontario has 95% of the auto industry and 24% of the aerospace industry as well. If one wants to be logical, if Ontario has the auto industry and Quebec has the aerospace industry, let us give 24% of the auto industry to Quebec, because Ontario has 24% of the aerospace industry. Where is the logic?

It is completely unacceptable that Quebec has such a small share of the auto industry. If the federal government does not do something now, Quebec's share will drop to 0% in August, while Ontario's share will rise to 100%. That is fair!

Never in their efforts to keep the plant alive did GM trade unionists threaten any boycotting. They sat down with GM's directors to look for solutions to the problem. They travelled all around Quebec to make the public aware of the terrible economic impact closing the plant would have.

They also won the firm support of 600 towns and cities in Quebec, of over 60,000 petitioners and of over 1.7 million union members. During the next election, I am going to remind those 1.7 million union members what this government did.

It is perfectly clear to everybody that the auto industry is going to Ontario. The proof is simple. Union president Buzz Hargrove said “It is essential that the federal government develop a new auto industry policy for Canada, recognizing Ontario is central to any new policy”.

In conclusion, the GM affair is proof to me that the federal government is robbing Quebec to benefit the other provinces. It is high time that Quebec became a sovereign nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by the Bloc Quebecois' motion. This is an issue that has been debated for a long time in Quebec and in Canada, yet the Bloc Quebecois decided to bring it up for debate in the House as the plant is within months of shutting down its operations.

It seems to me that if the Bloc Quebecois were serious about this issue, this debate should have taken place a long time ago. There must surely be a reason behind this. In fact, the Bloc Quebecois' only argument is to claim that the Government of Canada did nothing about it.

Our government was the first one to organize meetings regarding this issue. We are funding a committee and we sit on it. We organized meetings with GM officials in Detroit. If there is an issue on which there is very close co-operation between the various levels of government, between the Quebec and federal governments, it is this one.

The debate got off on the right foot. But the more it goes, the more it seems like they want to create rivalry between Quebec and Ontario, instead of really looking at the fundamental problem in the automotive industry. Even the Quebec government offered over $300 million to GM in 1999, but that offer was rejected. So, what GM is currently experiencing is not a money problem. It must be something other than a money problem.

The only solution that the Bloc Quebecois is proposing right now is for the Prime Minister to contact or meet the head of GM, which should resolve the matter. This is a rather serious issue. So many representations have been made by both levels of government that the Bloc Quebecois ought to be a little more objective in its comments.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I ask myself what I should reply. I believe that my colleague from Salaberry—

[An hon. member]

Beauharnois--Salaberry.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

—from Beauharnois--Salaberry must be from another planet. What he is saying is illogical. Let us recall how many times the auto workers have come to the Hill to protest. Let us recall how many times the auto workers have, over the years, come to see their federal MPs from Quebec, and gone from one minister's office to another. How many times has this happened?

I would like to remind my dear friend and colleague, the man from another planet, of the problem of PACCAR, Kenworth-PACCAR. This business closed down, but thanks to the good work of the federal government of the day and the good work of the Quebec government, and thanks to the efforts by the people of the region, PACCAR reopened its doors, and things are going very well for it. They have just done some more hiring, some job creation.

The government is talking of money. The Quebec government made an offer to GM of a $360 million plan to help the company survive. The brilliant Deputy Prime Minister over there said “Well now, you know, I don't know about that”. I was there when he gave his response at the Boisbriand city hall. My dear colleague said “Well now, we at the federal level surely have some programs that could perhaps—” No one sat down with GM to offer a clear, cut and dried federal position on this.

The Minister of Justice went to Detroit. He came back to report, saying “It's all over, guys, GM at Boisbriand is a thing of the past”. He threw in the towel. When did they go to Detroit with Mr. Gagliano? Two and a half years ago. I know all about this issue, I have lived it. I do not promise pie in the sky. In the issues I deal with, I do not promise what I cannot deliver. I am involved hands-on. Let them not come and—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. The hon. member for Joliette.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to the motion we moved regarding GM, I do so with mixed feelings.

On the one hand I am very proud to be able to be here to defend the interests of Quebec and GM workers, to defend a region of Quebec, something—as the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles mentioned—the federal Liberals from Quebec are not doing. Not one of them has stood to defend the GM workers.

So, on the one hand I am proud of this, yet I am also extremely sad to have to intervene on this feared closing. Remember, the GM plant has not yet closed. September 2002 is the date that is being mentioned.

Which explains the timeliness of today's debate. If there were a real mobilization of all of the elected representatives from Quebec, not only from the Bloc Quebecois, but also from the Liberal benches, who must stop playing petty politics, it seems to me that we would be able to find solutions and keep GM in Quebec.

The shame of the GM plant closing is that, unfortunately, this is a situation that has been repeated all too often in Quebec's past. This is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the failure of the federal government's industrial policy. When I say failure, I am referring to the situation in Quebec for the most part. Unfortunately, Ontario has received more than its share of federal development assistance, while Quebec has gotten the crumbs.

There is only one company, one auto parts assembly plant in Quebec, and that is the GM plant in Sainte-Thérèse, and we would like to keep it. We should have had more. Sadly we only have the one, and we want to keep it. If we lose it, it will not be because of the political uncertainty of Quebec, as someone mentioned. That has nothing to do with this issue. It is rather proof of the failure of the federal government's industrial policies.

Quebec has developed and continues to do so. However, a look at all of the issues together reveals that Quebec has developed despite the federal presence, and despite the restrictions of federal policies.

From an economic point of view, the situation at GM is somewhat similar to the Kyoto protocol at the environmental level. The Canadian government is dragging its feet to ratify the accord, while everyone in Quebec supports it.

From a social point of view, it is like with the Young Offenders Act. In Quebec, everyone agreed that we had to maintain this legislation, because it gives excellent results. But the rest of Canada wanted a more repressive measure. So, the federal government met the wishes of the rest of Canada by going against the needs of Quebec.

The situation is somewhat similar with the millennium scholarships, where the government artificially created a program even though Quebec has had a loans and scholarships program since the late sixties. The federal government jeopardized our own initiative for reasons of visibility.

All these examples reflect the same reality. Canada is being built, and this is perfectly legitimate, but in the process, Quebec's aspirations are being denied and our province is forced to fall into step. This is exactly what happened with GM. The same thing happened in the auto industry.

I could give a list—unfortunately I only have ten minutes—of all the federal policies which, over the past 100 years, have adversely affected Quebec's development. But we managed to develop nevertheless. However, if we had been sovereign, we would have fared much better than we did during these 100 years.

For example, the National Policy, at the end of the 19th century, cut us off from our southern markets by artificially creating an east-west Canadian market. Fortunately, things are being straightened up with the free trade agreement. We are now doing more business with the United States than with the rest of Canada and this will continue.

During the fifties, the St. Lawrence Seaway was built. This project definitely had to be implemented, but a whole series of Quebec industries were adversely affected by it. The federal government never gave one penny to restructure these industries and retrain workers to promote sound industrial development in Quebec. There were problems in the southwest and eastern parts of Montreal because the seaway was being built, but the federal government never provided any help.

Because of the Borden Line, for years we had to pay more for our oil than what we would have paid on international markets, this to subsidize western Canada's oil industry.

Since 1970, Trudeau's energy policy has led to direct investments of $66 billion in the hydrocarbon industry and zero for hydroelectric development in Quebec.

As for research and development, we are aware of the imbalance in federal expenditures in that area. There are no research centres in Quebec. They are all located in Ontario.

We still managed to further our development thanks to our economic success, among other things. As for the knowledge economy, half of the jobs are in Quebec. And we did that despite the federal government's policies.

That is what the GM issue is all about. The federal government may have a chance to react and to make a concerted effort to find a solution that would prevent the plant from shutting down.

I remind members that this plant closure will cost 1,400 direct jobs, good jobs, as well as 9,000 indirect jobs. It will affect several regions in Quebec: the Beauce region, the Outaouais region, the Eastern Townships, southwest Montreal—southwest Montreal again. Small businesses that manufacture parts for GM may have to shut down. It is indeed a critical situation for thousands of families, for thousands of workers all over Quebec. It is a matter of survival, and we must find a solution.

The FTQ and the union have proposed solutions. What is needed is a new model. Last March, the company showed some openness, but it also takes some political will on Ottawa's part.

The CAW and the FTQ have made and are still making the necessary efforts. However, they have noticed that the federal government is dragging its feet. Maybe it thinks that the auto industry has no place in Quebec, that it belongs in Ontario, that it must be concentrated in Ontario. I often heard that. It is normal for that industry to be in Ontario, that is where the concentration is.

However, when it comes to industries operating in Quebec, they must be spread out all over the place. In the case of the pharmaceutical industry, for example, which is concentrated in the Montreal area, the federal government, with all its subsidies, is creating Canada-wide competition.

It is the same for the aerospace industry. In the case of the F-18 maintenance contract a few years back, we were told: “You have the space agency, this is going to Winnipeg”.

When it comes to Quebec, the approach is piecemeal; when Ontario is involved, there is an industrially cohesive policy. That is how the federal government operates. It is not even a failure to act, as in the case of GM; it is bad faith.

I appeal to the Liberal members from Quebec: come with us. We are prepared to set aside party lines and sit down and find solutions with you, because what is at stake is the future of a region, the future of thousands of families in Quebec. I am sure that these members are concerned about the wellbeing of Quebecers. This is an opportunity for them to show it.

As the preceding speaker said, and as we all know, productivity is not a problem at GM. In Boisbriand, for instance, productivity went up 55.7% between 1989 and 1996, while for the GM group as a whole, it rose an average of 40.6%. Between 1997 and 2000, it went up by 14.5%, while for the GM group as a whole, it rose an average of 13.4%. Overall, this represents a 70% increase in productivity at the GM plant in Boisbriand, compared to 54% for the GM group in general.

Workers at this plant have made incredible efforts. I remember when Louis Laberge went to see them, before the paint plant was built. He told them: “If you want to keep the plant, you are going to have to roll up your sleeves”. And the workers did; so did the Government of Quebec. Now it is up to the federal government to develop some backbone, forget about politics and get back on board.

For a number of years, I was the secretary general of the CSN. Since I have a couple of minutes left, I am going to tell a little story. Sometimes, issues as important as this are ridiculed by federal government ministers, whom I shall not name; if ever I am asked which ones, I will tell you.

I came here with Expro workers fighting for the survival of their company. The minister in question, whose help we seeked to allow the company's conversion to less military operations said to me: “Mr. Paquette, why should I acquiesce to your demands? You are a separatist, and so are the union's leaders”. This attitude is unacceptable. This happened in private but I can assure you that those workers did not forget it. I would not like to go through a similar situation with GM.

I believe we have an opportunity to find a solution together. We should all support the motion moved by the Bloc Quebecois, namely the member for Laurentides. Also I think we should circulate the CAW's petition.

Personally, I believe that the sovereignty of Quebec remains the way to avoid the worst case scenario for GM.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, a short while ago my hon. colleague was asked if he was from the same planet. I can assure hon. members I am from the same planet and the same country on the same continent.

I find it rather divisive when I hear members saying that the emphasis should be on the government to share an industry. I remind my colleagues in the Bloc that in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C., which have a great deal more population than Quebec, there is no automobile industry there. There was at one time, the plant is still there. Why are we talking about the responsibility of government to share an industry?

It is not the role of the federal government to say this should be put here, there or there. It has not in the past and if it does now I will be the first one over there to tell it what I want in Saskatchewan.