Debates of March 1st, 2007

Passports

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, March break starts in a little over a week. Today I have three staff working exclusively on passports in my office, and it is not the only office. There is a crisis in passport service that has only become worse since early January.

We know that 500 new people have been hired and that Passport Canada staff are working flat out, but it is not improving the situation. Citizens are upset and angry. Our offices are not passport offices.

What is the minister doing to fix this?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, the member has already outlined part of what we are doing. We are hiring more clerical staff and more officials to ensure the security and integrity of those important passport documents. We have individuals, as he knows and has recognized, in the public service who are working extremely hard. Last weekend we had a major exercise to try to deal with some of the backlog. The same will happen this weekend.

We will continue to try to bring down the wait times. We are putting more Service Canada offices out there to collect and receive the passport documents. We are working very hard to deal with the effects of the western hemisphere travel initiative.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this situation is going to get worse with the coming of the land crossing piece of the western hemisphere initiative next January. Northern, rural and remote Canada is being hit hardest as people drive 10 to 20 hours and pay for hotel rooms to access passport services.

Will the minister open up more passport offices? For example, there is no passport office in northeastern Ontario. He can open an office in Sault Ste. Marie, a border community with over a quarter of a million people within a three hour drive.

Passports are a government service and people are paying big bucks for that service. New passport offices would help clean up this mess.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the passport cost has remained the same. In effect, it is done on a cost recovery basis.

We are looking at all options to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of how passports are currently handled. We are not going to sacrifice the security of these documents. They are highly sought after by international terrorists and others who use them for nefarious purposes. We will not sacrifice security for expediency.

Having said that, we will continue to examine all options, including looking at new office locations, new technology and new means to receive this information. I applaud the efforts of Passport Canada in its work.

Multiculturalism

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on August 24, 2005, the Liberal government signed an historic agreement for $12.5 million with the Ukrainian Canadian community for the acknowledgement, commemoration and education of Canadians of the dark episode of internment operations against Ukrainian Canadians. The program was to be administered by the Shevchenko Foundation.

The Conservative government outrageously cancelled the agreement and ripped it away from the Shevchenko Foundation. Will the government re-announce this Liberal initiative in its budget before Mary Haskett, the sole survivor of internment, dies?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Secretary of State (Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity)]

Mr. Speaker, this government did no such thing. This government will acknowledge and has acknowledged the injustice of first world war wartime internment measures.

That member should apologize to the community. He and I attended a Ukrainian event last week in Toronto where he stood up and said that the Liberals had “budgeted” $12.5 million for the Ukrainian internment. That was a complete, blatant, and I believe deliberate falsehood.

Sudan

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in his latest report to the Security Council on Darfur, the United Nations Secretary-General reiterated that increasing violence has stretched the capacity of the African Union mission in Sudan. Canada has played a leadership role in supporting AMIS, but now it is clear that AMIS is desperately underfunded and under-equipped.

What is the status of Canada's support for this mission? Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House what our government is doing to ensure that the African Union's peacekeeping mission in Darfur is better equipped to protect the population at risk?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his ongoing interest in the issues that affect Sudan and Darfur. I am pleased to tell him that Canada continues to support the African Union mission in Sudan and its efforts to promote the ceasefire and protect civilians. In fact, to this end, Canada has committed $48 million to continue our critical support to the end of the AMIS current mandate of June 30, 2007.

We are among the largest donors, as he knows. In fact, my colleague from international development announced $13 million just last week. We are a principal supporter of the African Union's mission in Sudan and our continued support includes 25 leased helicopters, two fixed wing aircraft, and money to the African Union to purchase fuel to fly this critical air support.

Canada continues to strongly support this mission. Can we do more? Yes, we will.

Ghana

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

As the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier was reminding us, today marks the 50th anniversary of the independence of Ghana.

I want to remind hon. members that we are now all invited to join the Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association in Room 216 for a reception to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Ghana's independence.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader would reiterate his plans for the business for the rest of today and tomorrow.

The next two weeks are a scheduled parliamentary break, so I wonder if the House leader could also specifically tell us what House business he is planning for that full week that we are back after the break, including all of the exact days that will be designated for the budget debate, the exact time of the budget votes, and the final supply day that he will designate before the deadline on March 26.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue the debate on the Bloc opposition motion.

Tomorrow I hope to start and conclude the debate on the third reading stage of Bill C-36. This relates to the Canada pension plan and old age security.

Next week and the following week will of course be constituency weeks and members will be working in their constituencies while the House is adjourned.

When the House returns on Monday, March 19, it is my intention to call the report stage of Bill C-10, the mandatory minimums penalty part of our agenda to make communities safer; Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act; Bill S-3, to do with defence; and Bill C-33, relating to income tax.

At 4 p.m. on Monday, March 19, the Minister of Finance will present his budget, as he has previously advised the House. Tuesday, March 20 will then be the first day of the budget debate. Wednesday will be day two.

I am currently asking that Thursday, March 22 be the last allotted day subject to any need to reschedule given that we are three weeks away from that day.

Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of order to seek a ruling with respect to a decision made by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology yesterday.

I want to say at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that I am raising this ruling to clarify rules with respect to committees, particularly as they pertain when there is a vote in this chamber.

I do want to acknowledge that all members of the committee, in my view, acted appropriately yesterday, as did the clerk. This is not to question any of their actions. The clerk of our committee was very helpful yesterday.

However, in my view, there are some rules that need to be clarified. I think you may help us in clarifying them.

The decision of our committee yesterday compromised the supremacy of the House and placed me and other members in a conflict between representing our constituents in the House and my responsibilities as a committee chair.

While we were debating a motion at committee yesterday, the division bells sounded to call members into the House for a vote. Accordingly, a motion to adjourn was moved but was defeated by the combined opposition.

The opposition wanted to continue the consideration of a motion that was proposed by an opposition member. After further discussion, a second motion to adjourn was attempted and also failed.

On page 857 of Marleau and Montpetit it is stated that the chair of a committee must ensure “that the deliberations adhere to established practices and rules, as well as to any particular requirements which the committee may have imposed upon itself and its members”.

As the chair of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, I have a duty to uphold the decisions of the committee and the measures it imposes on me and the other members of the committee.

This, Mr. Speaker, was in direct conflict with my duty to vote in the House of Commons. As you are aware, this House has first call upon the attendance and services of its members, and while committees are creatures of this House, they are in fact subordinate to it. If a conflict arises as to the attendance and services of its members, one would think the House should take precedence.

The rules and practices are not clear on this matter, which we are asking you to clarify. On page 857 of Marleau and Montpetit there are references to the chairman's authority to suspend or adjourn a meeting, but only in cases involving decorum.

The committee was engaged in a debate on a motion that was supported by the opposition and opposed by the government. The departure of government members from the committee would have had no impact on the quorum requirements and would therefore leave the committee operating without the customary safeguard balance between the opposition and the government. Staying out of the House for a vote compromised that same balance in the House.

The authorities on parliamentary process emphasize the great importance of the protection of this balance. As you can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, this is of particular concern in a minority Parliament.

If this decision had been brought about by unanimous consent, then I would have no concern, but it was brought about by a majority decision that compelled all members to stay at committee rather than return to the House to represent their constituents at the votes.

I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give a ruling clarifying the rules so that all committee members, and particularly committee chairs, may be guided by it in the future.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Is the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh rising on the same point?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe this has happened on one or two other occasions. It may very well be good that you be given the opportunity to clarify this if you are so inclined.

However, this came as a surprise to us. I would like the opportunity to make argument. I am not prepared to do so at this point and would reserve that right at some point in the future, either tomorrow or when we return from the break.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I will not make a definitive ruling today, but for the benefit of the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh and all other hon. members who are interested in this point, the Chair has in hand a ruling given by Mr. Speaker Fraser on March 20, 1990, on this very point. Perhaps I could quote just a little bit of the ruling. I do not want to bore hon. members. It states:

Committees sitting at the same time as bells are sounded to call members into the House for a recorded division continues to be a problem in the eyes of some hon. members. On January 25 and again on January 30, first the hon. member for Ottawa Vanier and later the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca raised this matter.

This is not the first time this matter has been brought forward. Last May 31, for example, the hon. member for Hamilton East complained that the Standing Committee on the Environment was sitting at the same time as division bells were ringing in the House to call the members in for a vote.

Mr. Speaker Fraser went on. He referred to previous incidents from rulings from the Chair in 1971, 1976, 1978 and 1981. Clearly the Speaker had done a significant review of the situation. He concluded:

I am concerned about the matter raised by hon. members but, in my view, it is neither a point of order nor a question of privilege. It is rather a grievance but a serious one and in light of the many instances where the matter has been raised on the floor, it is one that merits some attention by the House. Perhaps the Standing Committee on Elections and Privileges might consider the situation to decide whether or not to recommend changes to our rules.

Evidently if the committee did consider the matter, changes were not made in the rules. The committee on procedure and House affairs, which has replaced that committee and did so many years ago, could consider this matter and come back with suggested changes to our rules that might deal with the grievance that is raised by the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc.

It appears, and I say appears because I am only hearing this now and have not done any more research than to dig out this particular ruling, that the issue raised by the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc is, as Mr. Speaker Fraser called it, a grievance and not a point of order or a question of privilege, and it may be that there is nothing I can do that will clarify the matter for the benefit of the hon. member or for the benefit of the House.

But certainly it is a grievance. In my view, the House ought to be the place where members should be able to come for a vote. When the bells summon members, they should come here. Indeed, in the old days committees had to have permission from the House to sit when the House was sitting, as is still the case in the other place down the hall.

If members want to consider such a change in the rules of our House so that committees cannot sit when the House is sitting, without permission, or if they must adjourn or suspend their sitting when bells are ringing to summon members here for a vote in the House, that is a question that could be considered by the committee on procedure and House affairs. The committee could make a report to the House that would result in either a directive or a change in our rules that would require committee chairs to act in accordance with that directive or those rules.

I will look at the matter. If the rules have changed any since the decision in 1990, I can assure the hon. member for Edmonton—Leduc that he will be on firmer ground than the members who were arguing the case then, and I will come back with a decision. But if it appears that things have not changed since then, I think he has a good idea of what I am going to say when I do get back to the House on this point. I will look forward to that, as I am sure he will.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Aerospace Industry

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to advise you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Verchères—Les Patriotes.

I usually say that it is a pleasure to address the House. Today, I will add that it is a pleasure to address the House on this motion presented by the Bloc. However, I would say that it is really unfortunate that we have to do it. The reason why we have to do it is that the Conservative government, which is now in power, has not done anything in this regard.

For the benefit of those who are listening, I will first read the Bloc Québécois motion, since the debate was interrupted for question period. To refresh our memories, here is the motion again:

That the House denounce the laisser-faire attitude of the government that prevailed in its negotiations with Boeing, regret the fact that Quebec did not get its fair share of the economic spin-offs of this contract given the significance of its aeronautics industry, nearly 60%, and call on the government to provide fair regional distribution of economic spin-offs for all future contracts.

I feel it is essential at this point to describe the context in which this motion was presented.

First, Public Works and Government Services Canada recently awarded a $3.5 billion contract to Boeing without any call for tenders and without even demanding or negotiating with this giant American company specific conditions regarding regional economic benefits in Canada and, incidentally, in Quebec.

Second, Public Works and Government Services Canada is preparing once again, at the request of the Department of National Defence, to purchase 16 Chinook helicopters for $2.7 billion and 17 Hercules transport aircraft, this time for $5 billion, but still without any tender call and without any conditions regarding regional economic benefits.

What is both unacceptable and incomprehensible is that, once again in just the last few weeks, the Conservative government will not intervene to protect the interests of Canadian and Quebec companies. Although this government had an opportunity and will have another one in the near future, it will not do anything to ensure regional economic benefits in Canada.

We should look at this a little more closely. These contracts, the one given to Boeing for $3.5 billion and the ones that soon will be awarded for the princely sum of $7.7 billion, did not use the well-known, transparent, very fair method known as a tender call.

As I said during the debate on the motion of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on the use of tender calls when major buildings are being purchased, it is a matter of great concern when the government fails to proceed in this way.

Why is it troubling? The government is responsible for ensuring the best cost-benefit ratio. It is responsible for guaranteeing taxpayers that it is providing the best possible financial management of public funds. It is responsible for showing citizens that it is optimizing the use of every tax dollar taken from the pockets of the people to whom it is accountable and must report.

This means that the government must have a way of doing things, an approach to governance, that follows best practices, not just in theory but also in practice, in order to move from the realm of ideas to a reality of transparency, honesty and accountability.

This is all the more important in that Public Works and Government Services Canada manages purchasing and the provision of goods and services on behalf of its clients, the departments and agencies, and it is therefore nothing less than the fiduciary of the government’s spending power.

Now that I have sketched out my views on the government’s responsibilities and obligations in regard to what should be transparent, healthy, responsible governance—and we should remember that this was the government that wanted to bring forward the accountability act—I want to move on to the Bloc motion and regional economic benefits.

I had the opportunity to ask the following question of the minister, Michael Fortier, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates just a few days ago, on February 15. My question was as follows, “For what reason did you not require that there be economic benefits throughout Canada, and in particular in Quebec? ...Does this mean that in all future contracts, regardless of their nature, the current Conservative minority government will no longer ensure that the regions benefit fully from the economic spinoffs of these transactions?” The answer was, and I quote, “That is correct”. Minister Fortier added, “With respect to regional spinoffs, Boeing or the other countries that get contracts will negotiate contracts privately with Canadian suppliers”.

So this minister has no intention of doing anything differently. That means that this Minister of Public Works and Government Services, like his colleague, moreover, the Minister of Industry, has no intention of acting in the interest of Canadian or Quebec companies. We know, though, that Quebec accounts for 60% of the aerospace industry in Canada.

It is this shameful laissez-faire that the Bloc Québécois is criticizing, and it is not alone, because the Liberal minister from Quebec, Raymond Bachand, has also stated that Quebec should have its fair share, and that, “It is not up to Boeing to dictate the economic spinoffs, the federal government has a responsibility”.

Representatives of the Quebec aeronautics industry, along with the workers’ unions, used similar language. How horrible that the Minister of Industry and the Conservative government should hide their inaction behind the mask of non-interference. We are talking here about public funds, billions of dollars. A responsible government, concerned about economic growth, the redistribution of wealth and its citizens, should become involved and dictate conditions concerning regional economic spinoffs on its territory.

The Minister of Industry has the nerve to say that he is organizing trade fairs with Boeing and Lockheed Martin, among others, to provide an incentive to Canadian and Quebec companies to find out about business opportunities that are opening up for them. That means they would go and advertise themselves, as if they needed to do this when we know how well known they are in Quebec. It is quite simply insulting. Although Minister Fortier and his colleague, the Minister of Industry, truly have the opportunity and the power to watch over the country’s economic interests, in this case, Quebec's interests,our people's interests, they think it is enough to talk to us about trade fairs. It is absolutely ludicrous.

Moreover, the American companies have 20 years to reinvest the economic benefits in Canada or in Quebec. How will the government monitor this? Most of us will no longer be here in 20 years. Quebec accounts for almost 60% of the Canadian aerospace industry and deserves the same level of economic benefits, not the 30% Boeing offers, which the current minority Conservative government is willing to accept.

In closing, the fact that the Canadian industrial policy only requires that the foreign companies make a commitment that is commensurate with the value of the initial contract in terms of economic benefits is far from sufficient. The industrial policy must set specific targets for regional economic benefits. In the case of Quebec, it is 60%, nothing less.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a number of comments have been made today about our sole sourcing the contract and as a result we must have paid a lot more for the airplane. I am talking about the C-17. That is absolutely not true.

Due to our improved relationship with our biggest friend, ally and trading partner, and our strong negotiating approach, we are taking four spots in the C-17 production line at the same prices that will be paid by the United States air force for the same spot in the production line.

The really good news for the Canadian Forces, all the deserving companies in Quebec, and the rest of Canada who will share in the industrial benefits, is that they will be getting those aircraft a year early.

I wonder if my colleague and the rest of those who like to spread falsehoods for political reasons would stop misleading the House about what they perceive as the relative cost of these airplanes because what they are saying is flat out not true.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, regarding the comments made by colleague from Edmonton Centre, I would like to say that the member should be careful when he talks about falsehoods. In my speech, I made no mention whatsoever of the price tag of the planes that were recently bought from Boeing. I did not mention that at all. I spoke of a system, of a well established process we call competitive tendering.

Last June, someone wanted to buy the JDS Uniphase building. It was not deemed necessary to call for tenders on that either. We see a growing number of mutual agreement contracts where the government can look like it is discriminating in favour of one partner over others. Even if that has not been proven, the government ought to use the competitive tendering system. It is a well established, clean and honest process, particularly as this government, as I said earlier, prides itself on almost inventing the concepts of accountability, transparency and honesty.

[Serge Cardin, Bloc, Sherbrooke, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on the clarity of her remarks even though our Conservative colleague opposite does not seem to get what it is all about.

There is something that I do not quite understand and I hope my colleague can help me with this. This government—a very temporary government because it is walking a tightrope and I am convinced it will make a false step—protects different industries such as the automobile industry in Ontario. However, in the case of the aerospace industry, which is mainly centred in Quebec, it does not follow through with what I would call the tradition of protecting the industries where they are located. What motivates the government to act this way? I simple cannot understand it, unless we are dealing with pure political partisanship. I wonder if my colleague could elaborate on this.

[Louise Thibault, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, every time the name of my riding is read out, it seems to me that we are losing 10 seconds. However, although it is long, it is a beautiful name.

I wish to thank my colleague from Sherbrooke for his question. I will be clear. There is more to this than perceptions. We have witnessed this elsewhere. It is a matter of ideology. This is the same party that has drastically cut women's programs, literacy programs and others. It is purely driven by ideology. This comes from the fact that the government wants us to believe,as it does, that the market will regulate itself. When we are talking about protecting a well-known percentage of a Quebec industry, a niche where Quebec excels, the government will obviously go out of its way not to help us. I am, however, quite sure that the government would help the automobile industry.

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today the issue being debated in this House is the awarding of contracts to Boeing, which is not guaranteeing Quebec its fair share of economic spinoffs. The problem, unfortunately, goes much deeper than that. That is why I decided to rise today in this House and be a true spokesperson for the people in my riding, companies in the aerospace industry that are based in our riding, working people who live in Verchères—Les Patriotes, who live in Montérégie, and who depend on the aerospace industry for their livelihood.

Montérégie and Verchères—Les Patriotes are not isolated cases. In Quebec, there are 240 SMEs operating in the aerospace industry. Those companies have tremendous potential for expansion. Today, those company owners and those employees are wondering what they might have done to be abandoned. They cannot even count on help from the federal government. Those companies are being left to make their own way when they should be getting encouragement, they should be urged on and supported, because they have enormous potential, they have know-how and knowledge and skilled workers. We should really be giving them the resources and tools they can use to take their place on the global stage, in an economy where it is precisely the knowledge of these people that could make a difference, where Quebec could take a prime position in this niche at the international level.

And more than that, the companies in Verchères—Les Patriotes, the companies in Quebec in the aerospace industry, the workers in that industry, are wondering—and this is crucial, this is the key—whether they will be among the 18,500 workers who, ultimately, are going to lose these good jobs.

I wonder how we are to interpret the neglect exhibited by the government. What interest is it championing, at Quebec's expense? These are troubling questions.

Seeing that Ottawa is undercutting the only real aerospace centre in Canada, what are the members in this House from Quebec doing? As soon as we heard this disastrous news, the Bloc Québécois members got together, joined cause and put clear questions to the government. They stood up for this extremely important industry. Right up to the moment before the contract was signed with Boeing, the Bloc Québécois members stood as ardent champions. What did the Conservative members from Quebec do? At best, they said nothing, and at worst, they were like the Minister of Industry, who has hurt this industry in word and deed.

I wonder how the Minister of Industry managed to say, without batting an eyelid, without being struck down, that a contract awarded by the federal government could be regarded as a private contract, when it is paid for out of taxpayers' money. Is that really how this government intends to manage the public purse, by giving the laws of the marketplace free rein? That is laissez-faire, and laissez-faire is turning your back, it is abandoning an entire segment of Quebec society.

And what is the minister, Michael Fortier, doing? My colleague from Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques made it clear in her speech. He said that clauses that guarantee regional economic spinoffs were a thing of the past.

When the Prime Minister appointed Mr. Fortier to be a minister, he made him his representative for the Montreal region, his Montreal champion, to stand up for the interests of Montrealers. This is how he has decided to do that job of representing the people of Montreal, where 95% of the aerospace industry is concentrated.

A fine job, that.

What a responsible government needs to do instead is to encourage successful sectors. Quebec is a world leader in aerospace. In the case of concern to us here, the Conservative government had a right and duty to set conditions, particularly since military procurement is not covered by trade agreements. But no, it decided to take the path of hastily made announcements, somewhat along the same lines as with the changes to the language policy. Parliament was never consulted. The Commissioner of Official Languages has described the previous legislation as a dismal failure. Given that dismal failure, it ought to have consulted the colleagues in this House far more, as well as the communities and the military. But no, it decided to act precipitously, somewhat along the same lines as its approach to the Boeing purchases just days after the House adjourned.

I hardly need remind hon. members that Parliament acts as a guide. It would have been worthwhile to consult it. Huge purchases cannot be made without calls for tender, without assurance that the spinoffs will be fairly distributed. The Conservatives have already been more critical for less. I imagine there are some areas in which the government might want to be a bit more critical, and others a bit less. The proof of this: its total lack of scruples about continuing to help the Alberta oil patch.

Where high tech is concerned, we cannot just go with the flow. We must take the lead. This means providing R&D in the aerospace industry, particularly the aerospace industry in Quebec, with the support it deserves.

Another thing that is difficult to fathom is that, in late December of last year, the Conservative government announced the abolition of the Technology Partnerships Canada program, which provided support to the Quebec aerospace industry. We still do not know what will replace that program. That decision gave rise to a great deal of uncertainty and delayed development projects. Once again I ask: where is the consistency here? This sector is already successful, but could be even more so. Yet the federal government could not care less. What are we to make of such indifference?

What the Bloc Québécois is calling for instead is a true aerospace policy which would include, among other things, a clear and predictable program of R&D support and a support policy for small and medium businesses. Thousands of jobs in Quebec are at stake, quality jobs.

In closing, I can only regret that the Charest government, the Government of Quebec, has chosen, for the sake of getting along well with the federal government, to grovel and remain silent in spite of the disgraceful way the Conservative members from Quebec are doing the dirty deed against their own province, just to please their colleagues from Ontario and the west. As Canada is undermining the flagships of their economy, Quebeckers would certainly need a Quebec government which stands up for Quebec. Let us quickly elect a government in Quebec City that will stand tall.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has asked some questions.

First, what can the Bloc Québécois members do in the House? Frankly, not very much.

Second, what has the Conservative Party of Canada done for Quebec? In the context of the debate we are having today, the C-17 contract is the first of $17 billion worth of contracts, the benefits of which will go to all Canadians, including a very large portion to workers in the province of Quebec.

Third, does the Quebec industry not deserve some of those contracts? The answer is clearly, yes, it does.

I have particular experience with some of the big companies in Quebec, such as Bombardier Aerospace and CAE Electronics. There are other great companies in Quebec, such as Pratt & Whitney Canada, Héroux-Devtek, Bell Helicopter, Minicut International and many more, companies that can compete very well on their own right. They do not need people sitting in the House, who have no power to enact anything on behalf of their people, telling them that they are not good enough, that they cannot compete and win on their own.

My hon. member says that they have a great plan for the sovereignty of Quebec. What will the defence budget be of the new sovereign country of Quebec? How many billions of dollars of contracts will it be letting to companies like Boeing or any other company that may bring business back into the province of Quebec? What will its defence budget be?

[Luc Malo, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to note that my colleague opposite was able to identify a good number of competitive companies from the aerospace industry in Quebec. These companies are capable of obtaining good contracts, and this is what makes them what they are, one of the flagships of the Quebec industry. Need I remind that 60% of this industry is located in Quebec? This is exactly why we must ensure that there are fair and equitable regional spinoffs for our businesses. I very much like hearing my colleague say that they do things differently. We have heard the government say that it is respectful of provincial jurisdictions, but we have also seen a few examples in the House where this principle was unfortunately ignored.

Take for example the creation of the Public Health Agency of Canada when there already exists in Quebec an agency that does the same work very well. I think the government did not recognize the true value of that agency. If the government does not respect Quebec in an area like that, how could it do so when it must support Quebec's industry effectively and efficiently? Such a support would help keep these specialized skills in Quebec and workers would not have to expatriate themselves because their quality jobs would remain in Quebec where they could provide for their family. That support would allow the industry to remain competitive and Quebec to remain a world leader in the industry.

If the Canadian government does not want to give that kind of support, let it say so clearly to Quebeckers who would then understand and would know what to do at the polls. In the end, they would understand that the best thing for Quebec is to become a country, period.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague's remarks and to the debate.

Since the hon. member's party has chosen never to run for national government, essentially it has a choice to make every time a bill comes before the House. Does it take the position of the Conservative Party, which is one potential governing party in the country, or the position of the Liberal Party?

The position of the Liberal Party, when it comes to defence spending and to the procurement of aircraft, is that we do not need to procure these aircraft. The Liberals say that we need to rent a plane. If we are to have the rent a plane program from the Liberal Party, the economic spinoffs, the dollars, the benefits, would be absolutely zero.

When I listen to the hon. member criticize the Conservative Party, when I hear him say that he does not like the plan and the good work that has been done and the benefits that flow to the aerospace industry of Montreal, I can only conclude that he supports the position of the Liberal Party.

If my hon. friend is not prepared to support the Conservatives, why then does he implicitly support the Liberal position, which does absolutely nothing for Quebec?