Benoît Sauvageau

[La Soirée du hockey, June 17th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage a question about Radio-Canada's decision to stop broadcasting La soirée du hockey on its French network. I asked her if she intended to file a complaint with the CRTC to get Radio-Canada to reverse its decision. The minister replied that she would do so if necessary.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage tell us whether she made a decision and did in fact file a complaint?

[Soirée du hockey, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we must gather from the response of the heritage minister's answer that she intends to file a complaint with the CRTC, to get the CBC to comply with the Official Languages Act?

[Soirée du hockey, June 13th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister of heritage says she could intervene to force the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to broadcast La Soirée du hockey on its French network. However, yesterday, the spokesperson for the CBC questioned whether the minister had jurisdiction over the crown corporation' s business decisions.

Could the minister, who is suggesting that she intends to take action, tell us specifically what she intends to do about this?

[Legislative Instruments Re-enactment Act, June 12th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, to begin with, I would like to say that it is not easy to follow the member for Surrey Central, after such a fine, scholarly speech that covered every aspect of a bill as important as Bill S-41. Nevertheless, I shall attempt to make a modest contribution in an attempt to explain to Canadians and Quebecers how Canadian legislation will be improved once Bill S-41 is passed.

It is a pleasure, but also a disappointment to speak to Bill S-41, which originated in the Senate. The bill is in response to the report of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations that was tabled in October 1996. The response to a report which was tabled in 1996 and which was studied for many months comes in 2002. Therefore, the public and witnesses have been waiting for this response for six, seven or eight years.

People are disillusioned and disinterested in this government. The scandals, the squandering of public money, everything that has happened with Groupaction, Everest, Lafleur Communication, and so on, and the millions of dollars that have been wasted are examples that have made the public lose interest and confidence in the members who represent them and have led the public to become disaffected.

The six year wait for Bill S-41 is another example, in addition to the scandals at Human Resources Development Canada and those concerning the sponsorship program, which may explain the public's loss of interest in its elected officials.

As regards Bill S-41, I will quote some of the witnesses who appeared before the Senate committee. These are people who are well aware of the importance of this bill. I will begin with the hon. Minister of Justice. He said, on April 24, 2002, and I quote:

I am here today to discuss Bill S-41, the Legislative Instruments Re-enactment Act. This bill arises in the broader context of Parliament's duty to enact, print and publish its laws and other instruments of a legislative nature in both official languages of Canada. Before I present the purposes of this bill, allow me to clearly indicate to the committee that the government considers itself justified in asserting that the vast majority of such instruments comply with the constitutional requirements.

It was a nice admission on the part of the Minister of Justice to tell us that the vast majority of his instruments comply with legal and constitutional requirements. By saying this, he was really telling us that some of these instruments do not comply with the Constitution, but he said it candidly and honestly before a Senate committee. This is to the minister's credit, and I want to emphasize this.

Further on, the Minister of Justice added:

However, from 1867 to 1969—

I am not very good at math, but this means about 102 years.

—the scope of the constitutional duty was not known. Prior to the enactment of the 1969 Official Languages Act, it may fairly be assumed that most federal regulations, orders in council and other such instruments of a legislative nature were made only in one official language.

We are talking about the period from 1867 to 1969. I repeat what the minister said:

—it may fairly be assumed that most federal regulations, orders in council and other such instruments of a legislative nature were made only in one official language.

I will let hon. members guess which official language, but I will say that it is definitely not the one that I am using right now. This means that only one version of these instruments was signed by the governor in council. The minister concluded by saying:

These instruments were then generally printed and published in the Canada Gazette in English and French.

Of course, since then, we learned this through the rulings of the courts.

When we ask whether the rights of minority communities are being respected, the phrase “through court rulings” keeps coming up. When the government is not sure, instead of respecting what they think are people's rights, it turns to the courts, with the resulting expenditure of money, time and energy. The minister goes on to say:

Of course, we now know through the judgment of the courts that such a practice does not meet the constitutional requirements applicable to such legislative instruments.

The Minister of Justice came to tell us that the vast majority of legislative instruments are consistent with the constitution. This therefore means that some are not.

With respect to the constitution, which was patriated in 1982, I wish to point out that we are still waiting for the legislative instruments to be adopted in French. This constitution has not yet been officially translated. Twenty years have passed. We can celebrate the 20th anniversary, but we are still waiting for the provinces to approve the legislative instruments in French. The country's primary law does not respect Bill S-41, as now enacted.

The minister said that because of the federal government's restrictive interpretation, statutes were enacted primarily in English for 102 years in violation of section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867. He very clearly pointed out to the Senate committee the shortcomings of the federal government with respect to its constitutional obligations since 1867.

The Commissioner of Official Languages, Dr. Adam, appeared before the Senate committee on this topic in May 2002. She said:

Moreover, these are rights that were recognized at Confederation by section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and confirmed and clarified in the Official Languages Acts of 1969 and 1988 and in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is somewhat amusing that we find ourselves here in June 2002 discussing a bill, S-41, which sets out, confirms or proves the rights contained in the British North America Act of 1867.

Those who have drafted legislative texts and those who have enacted these texts since 1867 have not understood that section 133 of the constitution required them to do so in both official languages.

For 102 years, section 133 of the constitution was for the most part neglected and violated, as legislative texts were enacted in one official language only. It would seem to me that, having realized the error, it ought to have been remedied. But no, it took supreme court judgments.

As I said, when there is any doubt as far as the defence of the rights of minority francophone communities is concerned, rather than allowing them to exercise their rights, they are told to go to court. Then the cases move from courts of first instance, to second instance, and then to the supreme court. Then after five, ten, fifteen years of debates, the minority francophone communities are informed they were right. Everyone knows that, because it is clearly stated in the law.

But to get to that point, they have to hire lawyers, and spend money and energy they ought to be devoting to the promotion and development of their community. They are required to expend energy on defending rights that are already obvious, since they are in the constitution and in other Canadian statutes.

Here is what Ms. Adam said. “Fortified by these guarantees from 1867, 1969, 1999 and the two Blaikie judgments rendered more than twenty years ago, we now learn, with some astonishment, that there are still a number of pre-1980 regulatory instruments—no one knows exactly how many—that were not re-enacted in both official languages”.

This government does not abide by the Official Languages Act nor the Canadian constitution, but asks people to abide by its laws. That is pretty funny.

Ms. Adam concluded by saying:

The situation must indeed be remedied at the earliest possible opportunity so that the constitutional obligation of legislative bilingualism is respected and the validity of our laws ensured.

It is pretty disturbing and worrying to see the official languages commissioner ask the government to remedy, at the earliest possible opportunity—this is a nice phrase that means absolutely nothing to the government—a situation that is written and enacted in the founding legislation of this country and that goes back to 1867.

Today, the commissioner is saying:

The situation must be remedied at the earliest possible opportunity.

To think that the government wonders why some people do not have confidence in it and why French language minority communities doubt its goodwill.

It is simple, it is clear, it is specific and it is obvious, we have just demonstrated this. When it comes time to assert a right, it has to be fought for. In the case of this right, it has taken more than 130 years.

Also, at the same time as it is introducing Bill S-41, this government is telling us “We are hiring unilingual English employees to fill bilingual positions, but we are asking them to learn French, this country's other official language, within a reasonable timeframe”. No one knows what reasonable means.

So, at the same time that Bill S-41 is being introduced—government members may wonder where I am going with this example—we are also discussing hiring a poet for the House of Commons and the Senate, a very official position. Now, I did have not taken this to the supreme court, but as far as I can see, the Official Languages Act is not being respected.

So a bill has been drafted to clarify a section of the Constitution Act, 1867. The government is swaggering around, saying “This is wonderful, we are fixing a problem that has existed for some one hundred years”. However, at the same time, it continues to violate this country's laws.

I will read an excerpt of the release issued by the House of Commons and the Senate on the hiring of this poet. I want to point out that we opposed the creation of this position. The release reads:

Candidates must have published poetry works. They must also have made a contribution to writing and be accomplished writers who have influenced their peers.

When we hire a poet, it goes without saying that the person should have some experience in this area. It only makes sense. So far, so good.

The release then provides that:

—the candidate—and this is getting interesting—should be able to write in both official language.

I hope that he or she will indeed be able to write in both. A person who can write neither in English nor in French has a problem when applying for this position.

However, if I am reading correctly the job offer for the poet who was just hired, an idea, as I said, that we opposed, a person who only speaks one of the country's two official languages could have applied for the position. I am sure that the President of the Treasury Board will tell us “No problem. The incumbent can take courses to learn the other official language afterwards”.

If the person hired for this position is a unilingual francophone, I am prepared to make a long speech in the House of Commons. I am prepared to meet the challenge.

I know very few people with a command of only one of the two official languages, specifically French, who are hired in so-called “bilingual” positions. But it is a different story for the other linguistic group. Furthermore, I will be providing statistics.

We are told that the poet could speak and write in English only and be hired. It is not easy to translate poetry. I have never tried, but it cannot be easy.

How, in the year 2002, can the government offer an official position in one or the other of the official languages, but not both? The President of the Treasury Board will tell us that the person will take training in the other language. By the way, the language in question will be French. We presume that, after a reasonable period of time, this person would be capable of writing their poems in both official languages.

This is in very bad faith, and it is dishonest. The government is introducing a bill like this and, at the same time, breaking the basic rules for an official position in parliament.

I urge my friends and colleagues living in minority communities throughout the country, and anglophones who respect the law and who are francophiles to ask themselves some questions about the hiring of this poet. If the government hires a unilingual anglophone, what message does this send to anglophones about respect for French-language communities, and to francophones about respect for themselves?

In the job offer, the government says that the poet must have a command of one or the other of the official languages, which I find utterly shocking.

This job offer is indicative of this government's whole approach to the Official Languages Act. Since the Liberal Party took office, the total number of offices designated bilingual in Canada dropped by 25%. This government was so interested in bilingualism that it reduced services in French by 25% in those places where people are entitled to ask for and receive service in their own language. Since 1993, the number of bilingual positions has dropped by 25%

Bill S-41 is all well and good, it is quite nice, but there is still a problem. Another statistic shows that 20% of public service managers who are in bilingual positions today are unable to meet the bilingualism requirements. This means that when a position is created, one of the conditions of this position is that the candidate be bilingual. Then a unilingual anglophone is hired. In 99.9% of the cases, the unilingual person that is hired is anglophone. A unilingual anglophone is hired to fill a bilingual position, and they are told “You must now take language training in the other official language, French”.

Currently, 20% of the management positions in the public service that are designated bilingual are held by people who do not meet the bilingualism criteria. They want to hire a unilingual English poet, and they want to pass Bill S-41.

Furthermore, the number of public servants at every level in the different departments who are responsible for the Official Languages Act, and the ones responsible for francophone minority issues, has dropped by 50% since the Liberals came to office. I am not only referring to deputy ministers, but all levels. The number of public servants assigned to positions directly or indirectly related to the Official Languages Act or to issues affecting official language minorities has plummeted by 50% since 1993.

Even the throne speech contained the following statement:

Canada's linguistic duality is fundamental to our Canadian identity and is a key element of our vibrant society—

It is a matter of saying one thing and doing another. I have proven this with the various statistics I have presented.

Since the Liberals came to power, the budget allocated to the Commissioner of Official Languages has been cut 28%. The person who is in a position to defend minority community rights, Commissioner of Official Languages Dyane Adam, has less money, fewer means, fewer tools, fewer resources to defend these communities.

At the same time as the government is talking in its throne speech about how important these communities are to the government, it has cut the number of employees responsible for their issues, their programs and their rights. There has been a 25% cut in the number of service points available to them, and people who speak only one official language are now being hired for positions with bilingual designation. At that same time, we are faced with the affront of the acceptance of a so-called official poet laureate, who might well speak only one of this country's official languages, and you can guess which one that would be.

We cannot, indeed, have any objection to the adoption of Bill S-41, because it rectifies a situation that is totally unacceptable and has gone on too long. Today, we still do not know how many bills and other instruments have been drafted and introduced in complete contravention of Canada's constitution.

I therefore encourage hon. members to support this bill. I do, however, hope that the ministers of this government and the members of the opposition will not give this matter only occasional consideration. It is an ongoing situation in our minority communities and requires their ongoing attention. I trust that they will always be watchful of what is going on with francophones in minority communities. They must not say to themselves “We have adopted Bill S-41 so we will deal with it two, five or ten years down the road”.

The sole purpose of this bill is to remedy a shortcoming that ought to have been remedied since 1867. As the person supposedly responsible for the Official Languages Act, the president of the privy council, has said—and if he does not agree, let him say so—“If the francophone communities continue to go to court to defend their rights, they will have less money for programs aimed at promoting their communities, helping them develop, and encouraging various events in their communities and regions”.

I do not believe that this is the way to advance the cause of minority official language communities. Their self-actualization will come through openness, an open and flexible interpretation of the various issues and the various pieces of legislation.

In conclusion, the Minister of Justice candidly admitted to the Senate committee that he was not complying with the constitution. He also told the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages that, in his opinion, the most important section in the Official Languages Act, namely section 42, was a declaration of intent on the part of his government and not an obligation to act.

Again, in order to ensure the respect of an act that enjoys unanimous support—an act that was recognized by everyone in committee and even in the various court rulings—minority French language communities will have to turn to the courts. The minister told us that if minority French language communities want confirmation of the existence of this right, namely the government's obligation to act, as opposed to having made a mere declaration of intent, he is giving them the option of going before the supreme court.

Five or ten years from now, after having spent and wasted a couple of hundred thousand dollars—that they do not have or that they could use to promote and develop their communities—the government will have no choice but to meet its constitutional obligations. It will be obliged to promote and to take action. This is clearly spelled out in the act.

But the minister said “This is a declaration of intent; we do not intend to engage in this promotion, in this development of French language communities”.

We must support Bill S-41, but we must also be much more open. We must always keep in mind the development and promotion of these communities.

[Official Languages, June 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Commissioner of Official Languages, the government is exhibiting laxity as far as official language skill requirements and monitoring are concerned at the senior public service level.

Does the minister responsible for official languages agree with the commissioner that all senior public service positions should be bilingual?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, May 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I admit that speaking after the member for Matapédia—Matane and also the member for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans is a pleasure, but also a challenge. Nevertheless, I shall try to introduce new elements into the context of our consideration of Bill C-55.

As my colleague from the Quebec City region pointed out, the Bloc Quebecois has reason to be somewhat proud of the Liberal's openness toward amendments made to the old bill, Bill C-42, to introduce Bill C-55. It is a new and improved version, thanks in part to the main arguments and concerns raised by the Bloc Quebecois.

The government did follow up on our arguments to provide a better definition of what was and still is called controlled access military zones. This is good. However—and I think this was already eloquently stated earlier, but it bears repeating—we are very worried that it is still the Minister of National Defence alone who will decide on the definition and description of the controlled access military zones.

Imagine for a moment, if the bill were passed as is, the trust that would be placed in the Minister of National Defence, or the good judgment that we would hope he had. Imagine for a moment that the Minister of National Defence was the former minister of defence, the one who just left, and that he had to make a difficult decision. This is the same one who forgot to notify his cabinet colleagues, the Prime Minister and just about everyone that Canadian soldiers had captured prisoners in Afghanistan. Under this bill, we would have had to trust him to designate a controlled access military zone. I believe that this is putting too much faith or giving too much authority to this minister of defence.

What is more, last weekend he demonstrated to us that this faith that we could have, or should have given him would have been completely unwarranted when we learned that he awarded contracts worth $36,000 from his discretionary budget to his ex-girlfriend for a study already underway in the Canadian army.

The minister probably would have consulted the Prime Minister, or the decision might have been made by the Prime Minister.

This is again a matter of judgment or confidence in the Prime Minister. We are once again faced with a problem of judgment or confidence in the Prime Minister, who was himself investigated in the matter of the Auberge Grand-Mère and the golf course, who was also investigated for contracts awarded to Liberal organizer friends in his riding of Saint-Maurice, with Placeteco, and who is again under investigation, directly or indirectly, because of contracts awarded without competitive tendering and against all the criteria established at CIDA. Now he should be trusted to make a decision on a controlled access military zone. I think that even with the Prime Minister, we could not feel safe.

Suppose or imagine that Alfonso Gagliano were the Minister of National Defence. Under Bill C-55, he would have had the power to create a controlled access military zone. Does he deserve our trust or have enough judgment to make such a decision? I am sure that the Prime Minister would answer yes to this question, given that he named him Canadian ambassador to Denmark instead of the second in command in the Paris embassy. Still, Mr. Gagliano is the one who awarded Groupaction, among others, tens of millions of dollars in contracts. We all know that Groupaction is also under criminal investigation for having obtained money from the government under three contracts that produced in fact three copies of a single report. If Alfonso Gagliano had been the Minister of National Defence at that time, one could have wondered.

Just think for a minute that under Bill C-55 as it stands, the Minister of National Defence could have been the former ex and now new government House leader who was also very briefly the minister of public works. Trust would have been put in the former new government House leader, who would have been told “You do have the authority to designate a controlled military access zone”.

However, let us not forget that this is the same minister who enjoyed the hospitality of the president of Groupe Everest in violation of the code of ethics.

How could such power be conferred upon the former and current House leader when he does not even have enough common sense to know that he was violating the code of ethics and the most elementary rules of a public works minister with a huge budget, into which he was shamelessly dipping to reward his friends?

He is also the one who awarded contracts to Coffin Communication. This is worse than what we saw with Groupaction, since Coffin Communication was paid for reports that do not exist. At least, Groupaction made photocopies of a report, which shows that it had a minimum of decency.

However, Coffin Communication, a company without any employees, believe or not, received government contracts, never produced any report, and the whole thing was approved by the government and by the minister of public works.

If he were the minister of defence, knowing the powers associated with that office, I think that he would not deserve our trust because he would not have enough judgment to make these decisions.

However, concerning Bill C-55 as proposed, let us suppose that the position of minister of defence is held by the current minister of immigration. He could designate a controlled access military zone one day, forget that he did by the next day, and then come back the day after that and say “Yes, it is true, I did make such designation”.

The minister of immigration is also the minister of amnesia. When we put questions to him, he does not remember anything. If he had spent only one night at Claude Boulay's, it is conceivable that he might have forgotten about it. But if a person spends six weeks somewhere, he should remember it. We may forget about a period of ten or fifteen minutes. But if we forget about a six week period, we should seek medical attention, and this is very relevant.

If the minister were the Minister of National Defence, could we put our trust in him or believe that he has enough judgment to make a decision? To ask the question is to answer it.

There are others in this government who can fulfill the duties of Minister of National Defence. Let us suppose that it is the solicitor general. Would the current solicitor general deserve our trust to hold a power as important as that of designating controlled access military zones?

I should point out that it is this same solicitor general who made representations to people in his own department to further the cause of his brother in his region.

Would the solicitor general deserve our trust? Does he have enough judgment to alleviate our main concern about Bill C-55, which has to do with the designation of a military zone? Again, to ask the question is to answer it.

Suppose the Prime Minister makes changes and says that none of these ministers will be involved. Upon hearing him announce that the Minister of Justice will be the Minister of National Defence, we would have to ask ourselves if he is worthy of the trust that is required to hold this important power.

He just made an admission very candidly, because he is lacking visibility. He said “This is no fun for me. My colleague, the minister of immigration, is always making headlines these days. My other friend, the House leader, is also making headlines these days, but not me”. So, he made an admission to journalists, who did not have to look for long. He said “Do not bother searching. I accepted fishing trips from Groupe Everest. I went on these fishing trips. I went to the Moisie River. I travelled to Sept-Îles, and it was pleasant”.

Would he deserve the trust that is required under this bill to hold such an important power? To ask the question is to answer it.

However, if the Prime Minister ignored all this and appointed the first woman defence minister, namely the current Minister of Human Resources Development, would she deserve our trust and have the judgment required to hold the important power of designating a military zone?

Let us recall that there were 17 investigations into this minister's department because of a scandal of almost $1 billion. Indeed, she was making up new terms in the Employment Insurance Act in order to find pockets of poverty in her riding. Such pockets of poverty did not exist in ridings with an unemployment rate of 14%, whereas the unemployment rate in her riding was only 8%. Yet there were pockets of poverty. Even the Tories, at that time, did not find it very amusing, I would remind the House.

However, what if the Prime Minister chose none of these ministers, but the heritage minister instead. That would be even worse. She has handed out flags to everybody. She has given $2 millions to her friend, Robert-Guy Scully, something under investigation by the RCMP.

I know that the my time is almost up. However, if the transport minister, who had to resign when he was defence minister because he had tried to shut down the Somalia inquiry, had had this power, would he have deserved our confidence?

I think we have every reason to wonder about the appropriateness of giving the minister this kind of power.

I could talk about the former solicitor general, who said certain things on a plane. I could talk about Michel Dupuy, the former heritage minister. I could talk about all the other ministers who have been caught up in conflicts.

I think I have shown pretty well why we are so reluctant to support the bill as it stands now.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

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

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bilingualism, April 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, will the President of the Treasury Board give us an assurance that positions with a bilingual designation will not be changed to unilingual positions, and that the March 21, 2003 deadline will be respected, once and for all?