Michel Gauthier

[Employment, October 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the time has come for the Liberal government to meet with its party faithful this weekend, in order to look at the commitments it has made to the Canadian people. The Prime Minister claims he has kept his commitments but, essentially, his record has been a big fat zero.

The Liberal government got itself elected with its slogan of "jobs, jobs, jobs", which it repeated high and low in order to convince the public that employment was its top priority.

What can the Prime Minister say today to the million and a half Canadians who are not working, still not working, despite the Liberal promises, while the unemployment rate still hovers around the 10 per cent mark? What can the government and the Prime Minister say to these people, except to admit that they have not met their commitment?

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, you will understand that I can hardly keep a straight face when I hear a Liberal like the hon. member opposite telling me that we are not able to rise over partisan politics. In this House, we know all about the government's eagerness to promote its red book, to use government services to promote its funding drives, to appoint its friends everywhere, and the member has the gall to talk about partisanship.

Yes, we are partisans, partisan of development. We are in favour of real development for the Montreal area.

The hon. member is asking for suggestions; I made some and I will make more. The government should have the courage to fairly allocate research and development funding in Canada and to take initiatives for the development of the Montreal area. I think that instead of buying flags for $20 million, the government should invest $7.5 million in the Tokamak project in Varennes, that way it would effectively support the economic development of the Montreal area.

I am in the process of providing an answer.

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, we accuse the federal government, its predecessor, and the one before that, of which the Prime Minister was also a member, having been here since the Auto Pact or just about. Federal governments have always made decisions that penalize Montreal.

In the railway industry, federal decisions have cost Montreal 15,000 jobs in the past 15 years. Air traffic has been transferred and, as passengers are now arriving in Toronto instead of Montreal, our airports are in trouble. Government decisions which favour Canadian International over Air Canada will also create problems because Air Canada jobs are located in Montreal, while Canadian's jobs are elsewhere. Indeed, the federal government keeps favouring Canadian over Air Canada.

As for shipping, they are taking decisions which could prove very harmful to St. Lawrence harbours. The Centre for Information Technology Innovation in Laval has lost 80 jobs. The St. Hubert Command Centre is down by at least 480 jobs. The federal government's decision to save $7.5 million means there will be no more research and development in the Montreal area at the Tokamak installation in Varennes. Helped along by the federal government, Atomic Energy of Canada is heading toward Toronto and could take with it some high technology companies in the sector. The creation of a Canada-wide securities commission, which will transfer the nerve centre from Montreal to Toronto, will shift even more activities to Toronto.

But what decisions is the federal government taking that favour Montreal, other than those concerning equalization payments? Last week the Prime Minister was happy to announce for the first time a good decision for Montreal. He was happy, and rightly so, because otherwise he would have had nothing to report. He says he is concerned about the problems of Montreal, about the city's poverty and economic difficulties, but he does nothing.

This is why we chose today to speak about what the government should do, but will not do.

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, in politics, the greatest quality, in my opinion, is sincerity, honesty. When politicians address their electors or the public in general, I believe they have the duty to speak as truthfully as possible about situations as they see them but they must meet certain standards regarding what they say about the reality of the situation.

Yesterday, in this House, we questioned the Prime Minister. A few days ago, he had addressed a group of citizens in Montreal, where he told the chamber of commerce that the federal government was so concerned about the development of their city, that the federal government was so terribly upset about the financial difficulties Montreal is facing and, finally, that the federal government was taking oh so effective steps to support of Montreal's development. That is basically what the Prime Minister said.

As the official opposition, and concerned as we are about what happens to Montreal and even more so about what happens to the people of Montreal, who all too often find themselves jobless and living in poverty, we decided to check whether the statement made by the Prime Minister before the chamber of commerce had any basis whatsoever. Expressing concern about a city's difficulties before its chamber of commerce, in itself, is not enough to solve the problem. It takes more than the Prime Minister of Canada paying lip service to a healthy economy in Montreal, Quebec's metropolis, for economic prosperity to be restored there. It takes some concrete actions.

We asked the Prime Minister if he was prepared to act on this, that or the other issue. We referred to very specific issues that may help restore a healthy economy in Montreal, issues we will discuss in a moment. Not once did we get a clear answer from the Prime Minister, a positive and firm answer like: "In my capacity as the Prime Minister, I undertake to implement this initiative, which will create jobs for the Montreal area". Not once did we succeed in obtaining this kind of a commitment during oral question period.

Yesterday, to my colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, the Prime Minister gave an answer that spoke volumes about his vision of Quebec development. The hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve's question was this:

Why does the Prime Minister not agree to making federal procurement in Quebec proportionate to the size of its population?

Why would Canada not adopt a procurement policy based on equity, so that the purchases made with taxpayers' money are distributed according to the relative demographic weight of the various regions? This, I think, would be an interesting way of stimulating the economy in every region of Canada and not always buying, by a strange coincidence, from the same source.

The Prime Minister's answer was this:

Will the hon. member rise in this House and tell the public that, under the equalization payment system through which the Canadian government provides assistance to any region of Canada experiencing financial difficulties-last year, because its revenue was below a certain level, Quebec actually received an extra $500 million from the federal government?

The truth was out. For the Prime Minister of Canada, being fair to a region like Quebec, being fair to Montreal and helping with its development, means equalization payments. For the Prime Minister of Canada, being fair to Quebec means giving Quebec a share equal to the taxes it pays to Ottawa.

For the Prime Minister, real development that comes from producing goods and providing services is good for some regions of Canada, while, for other regions, fairness, material well-being and development mean equalization payments.

What the people listening to us must know is that, indeed, equalization payments are used when a region is unable to generate its own wealth. When a region finds itself in a difficult economic situation, these payments provide needed assistance.

When the Prime Minister comes to Montreal to shed a tear over the issue of development, he does not think about concrete plans or a shift in government policy, about real situations or a new way of looking at things, but about equalization payments.

Even though any economic development the federal government may foster through its purchases and its R and D spending just happens to favour Ontario-90 to 95 per cent in some cases of professional service procurement, while in other cases the figure is 58, 59 or 60 per cent-the Prime Minister tells us: "We have a procurement policy we must adhere to. Would we want to be unfair? The Government of Canada is so honest, so frank, that we call for tenders". But, by a curious coincidence, purchases are always made in the same place. By some strange coincidence, they are rarely made in Montreal.

How can the Prime Minister of Canada explain a vision of economic development based solely on equalization payments? For him and his government, social assistance is the key to Montreal's well-being. That is what the Prime Minister of Canada thinks.

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

moved:

That this House recognize Montreal as the economic mainspring of Quebec society and, therefore, condemn the federal government's lack of concrete initiatives in supporting the Montreal area economy, primarily: the federal government's under-investment in research and development; its inequitable allocation of federal purchases of goods and services; its lack of willingness to support Montreal as a major financial centre in North America and its termination of Montreal's role as a major transportation centre.

[Montreal's Economy, October 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister had nothing to tell the people of Montreal. Today, he has nothing to say to the official opposition. I will give him a third chance.

In recent years, the Liberal Party of Canada was fiercely opposed to Bills C-22 and Bill C-91, which encouraged the development of pharmaceutical industries in Montreal, a sector that is in good shape. I may recall that the entire Liberal Party voted against Bill C-91, except perhaps for the Minister of Finance, who was absent

at the time. Under constant pressure from the Ontario caucus, the government recently wanted to review the regulations of Bill C-91.

If the Prime Minister really wants to help Montreal develop its economy, will he promise today that he will not in any way change Bill C-91, which his party voted against but which is a godsend to the pharmaceutical industry in Montreal?

[Montreal's Economy, October 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister goes to Montreal, speaking to all Quebecers, says he is willing to give Montreal's economy a boost. People suggest certain projects that will help Montreal's economy, improve the job situation and provide for a better future, but he says no. He refuses to invest $7.5 million in these projects.

I will give him a second chance to show his good faith regarding Montreal. We know that Atomic Energy of Canada is a Crown corporation that refers its important decisions to the minister responsible.

Why did the government approve the transfer of the office of AECL to Toronto, which may eventually deprive Montreal of high tech companies in this sector, another area where the Prime Minister could help Montreal if he were so disposed?

[Montreal's Economy, October 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister went to Montreal to tell business people that he wanted to work together with the Quebec government and local stakeholders to deal with the real problems of real people, as he put it.

For many years, federal initiatives have had a crushing impact on Montreal's economy. To mention a few: the Borden line, which killed the petrochemical industry in Montreal; decisions in the air transportation sector, which, following the opening of Mirabel, compromised the viability of this airport; federal procurement policies, which penalized Quebec and Montreal; the way federal spending on research and development is directed, which penalizes Montreal's economy. These are all decisions that over the years have undermined Montreal's economy.

If the Prime Minister means what he says about wanting to help Montreal's economy, why does he not review his government's decision to put a stop to federal participation in the Tokamak project in Varennes, which provides the greater Montreal area with quality jobs in the high tech sector? That is a big help to the economy.

[Poverty, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister just misspoke himself. The poor, the people we are talking about, do not pay income tax. That is what I am trying to explain to the Prime Minister. We cannot use fiscal measures to help those

who are in need because they do not have enough money to pay income tax. And that is a fact.

One of the measures introduced by this government was employment insurance reform. Will the Prime Minister admit that as a result of this reform, his government has forced thousands of unemployed workers, tens of thousands of unemployed workers, to go on welfare? Does the Prime Minister think this is the kind of measure that will help the neediest in our society?

[Poverty, October 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps saying that there are still problems in this country, as if he had started to deal with the problems of the poor. However, that is not the case. The number of poor people and poor children has increased steadily since 1993, when his party came to power.

Does the Prime Minister realize that by cutting the Canada social transfer, money that is used for health care, education and social assistance, he is aggravating the problems of the poor by forcing provincial governments to reduce funding for measures that are intended to support people who are in need? Will he at least admit that?