Marcel Massé

[Quebec Economy, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I can quote some of the conclusions and even produce the report. Mr. Roh's main conclusion is as follows: An independent Quebec would have no automatic entitlement to existing trade agreements such as NAFTA, the World Trade Organization agreement and the Auto Pact. Accession to these agreements would have to be negotiated.

Second conclusion: American law does not allow the President of the United States to grant an independent Quebec access to the trade advantages it enjoys at the present time as part of Canada, until such time as Congress approves and implements such accession.

In addition, it would be a long and difficult process to negotiate accession by an independent Quebec to the WTO, NAFTA and the Auto Pact. Bowing to congressional and private sector pressures, American negotiators would try to obtain changes in key sectors such as agriculture.

[Industry Canada, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat my position, because it is true; the unity group within my Department has carried out no analysis whatsoever on duplication and overlap, and has carried out no study whatsoever on duplication and overlap.

We do have a process to reduce and eliminate duplication and overlap, and this has led to the signature of a number of action plans by the first ministers. So, that is a process which does exist. I greatly regret that the present Parti Quebecois government has refused to help us eliminate duplication. But the truth is: no studies of that type have been carried out for us.

[Industry Canada, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, again, we gave very clear answers to those questions. Quebec receives a proportion of capital defence spending that is much higher than its percentage of the population.

Again, page after page of the document in question shows that the separation they want would hurt Quebec employees as well as investments and the various industries in Quebec. Again, the document he is quoting from is the best proof that, on October 30, Quebecers will vote No to separation to preserve the economic benefits from their association with Canada.

[Industry Canada, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, again, the opposition's allegations are totally unfounded.

Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition made comments to the press, which were reported by Hugh Winsor and which indicate that there is absolutely nothing to support his allegations and no evidence whatsoever that any company has been subjected to pressure.

In fact, as far as the defence industry is concerned, the report points out that companies such as Expro and SNC-IT that are very dependent on federal ammunition contracts could be forced to close their doors, while the companies that now rely on support and service contracts could be compelled to move part of their operations.

I have here a whole list of excerpts from the report pointing to the main conclusion, namely, that separation would create very serious economic problems in Quebec and eliminate a great many jobs. I am willing to show the hon. member for Roberval, who requested it yesterday, the proof that the vast majority of the

industries identified in the report, the proof that Quebec's separation would be an element-

[Industry Canada, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the opposition is repeating-in the hope of making it come true-the allegation that there is a link between the analysis of various industrial sectors in the Industry Canada document and federal subsidies to these industries.

There is clearly no link between the two. What the report correctly describes is the fact that a great many Quebec industries are dependent on various federal subsidies and that if Quebec separates from the rest of Canada, many Quebec businesses will go bankrupt. That is simple. That is clear. That is transparent.

[Industry Canada, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, once again the opposition is mixing all kinds of issues together. Oerlikon and General Motors will be discussing their plans to perhaps enable Oerlikon to obtain subcontracts from General Motors.

But to give you a an idea of what is really in the Department of Industry document referred to, I will read you some excerpts. For example, in the aeronautics sector, what the "secret" Department of Industry document says is as follows: The generally stable climate and the availability of funding programs are what have been responsible for the industry's continued growth. The threat of separation might offer the companies an opportunity for out of province consolidation and restructuring.

That is what the document has to say about companies in the aeronautical sector. I might mention other sectors, but the conclusion is that this document states very clearly that separation will cost Quebecers dearly in all of the province's industrial sectors.

[Industry Canada, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the only communication between myself and Oerlikon has been one letter in which I forwarded to them, with General Motors' permission, a letter from GM stating that there would be discussions between the two companies to see whether it would be possible for Oerlikon to take part in the General Motors contracts.

That is all there was to it, and the allegations of the opposition are once again based on dreaming, obviously in technicolour, and without any basis in fact.

[Operation Unity Centre, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, clearly, our referendum strategy calls upon all resources available to us in Quebec to try and convince Quebecers that it is in their interest to vote No.

Now, I also read in La Presse what is happening. The CEQ, a pro-sovereignty union, is sending letters to all its members asking them to send money and to vote Yes. What is the difference between that organization and a business that needs to create jobs in a province and make profits and that realizes that its economic viability is dependent upon Quebec being part of a larger entity, namely Canada? Why should people who think it is in their best interest to do so not fight for federalism, just as the CEQ has no qualms soliciting money from its members and asking them to vote Yes?

Clearly, what we are doing can be justified and is in the best interests of Quebecers.

[Industry Canada, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, again, the opposition's allegations are very close to being unparliamentary. They do this because they have no arguments to support their views.

Speaking of documents, our document is available under the Access to Information Act. But what about the Le Hir studies, the hidden studies? When the Parti Quebecois and its little brother, the Bloc Quebecois, conduct studies that are inconsistent with their conclusions, what do they do? The same thing they did with the Georges Mathews and Bernier studies: they hide them.

In this case, the information is available. This information helps us determine whether our subsidies can create jobs in Quebec. We have the public interest at heart. But in their case, the question is whether hiding the studies that are inconsistent with their conclusions is in the interest of Quebecers who will vote on October 30.

[Industry Canada, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the answer is no. Government funding is provided, once again, according to the contribution a firm or an industry makes to the Quebec economy. It is provided on the basis of job creation. It almost always is public and is therefore subject to the government's public accounts.

This funding must be approved by the members of Parliament and the House and is therefore granted objectively. Once again, the opposition's allegations are unfounded.