Marcel Massé

[Industry Canada, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think I am going to have to explain this whole thing all over again. The Department of Industry document sets out clearly the position of the various industrial sectors. It indicates the effect separation would have on these sectors. It also indicates, in some cases, the amount of the financial assistance sought by certain firms.

This is common practice, and one the government is familiar with. Many companies follow this practice each year; that is, they apply for funding. We have to respond to these applications for assistance each year, and it is usual for this type of information to appear in an Industry Canada document.

[Industry Canada, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, again, these are unfounded allegations. Clearly, whenever subsidies are granted, the government always considers which industries could use them and for what purpose. The stated objectives are profitability and job creation, and these objectives are those set by the federal government for industrial development in Canada.

Is the opposition suggesting that we not look for ways to stimulate employment in Quebec? The burden of proof rests with opposition members. They are making allegations based on incorrect information and faulty analysis. Instead, they should share

with us the burden of developing Quebec's economy as best we can.

[Industry Canada, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Roberval continues to make unfounded allegations which are not justified by the document. I shall send him copies of the report on the various industrial sectors in which the conclusion is that separation would be harmful for Quebec. He will then see that this is the case in the majority of sectors.

When he says these are unnecessary documents, that is totally ridiculous, and I do not hesitate to say so, because the conclusions of the report clearly indicate the effects of separation on major industrial sectors in Quebec, essential information for the referendum. It comes as no surprise to me that the opposition has not read it, because it does not fall in line with their conclusions, but it is unfortunately the truth. Separation would be extremely costly for most industrial sectors of Quebec.

[Industry Canada, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the allegations of the hon. member for Roberval are unfounded. The document produced examines the industrial sectors in the province of Quebec, sector by sector. There are 20 or 21 in all. In each, we look at the economic situation and the effect of federal government funding.

It also looks at what effect separation would have on each of the industrial sectors in the province of Quebec, and in each case the conclusion is clear: separation would have harmful economic effects on the economic sectors of the province of Quebec.

[Research And Development, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec receives more than its share of research and development funding. The figures quoted by the Leader of the Opposition assume that money spent within the national capital area only benefits Ontario, while in my riding, I have 1,700 people who work in research and development institutions on the Ottawa side.

This is the wrong way to look at spending. In fact, when we exclude the National Capital area, we see that nearly 30 per cent of research and development spending goes to Quebec, which represents only 24.9 per cent of the population.

[Moody's, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Moody's indicates that, in the event of a yes vote, the credit ratings of Quebec and the other provinces should be reviewed, suggesting that the cost of credit would increase in Quebec and across Canada.

The conclusion is that the best way for Quebec to have a better credit rating and therefore lower interest rates is for it to remain in Canada.

[Duplication And Overlap, September 22nd, 1995]

Again, Mr. Speaker, at the meeting of the standing committee, I not only provided the complete list of those involved in making analyses, but I also explained what they had worked on.

Analyses were carried out for ministers to advise them on the current situation. Again, the opposition is trying not to shed light on the Le Hir studies because they were kept secret, but the Access to Information Act clearly states that analyses carried out for decision makers are confidential and therefore not covered by the act.

The opposition is trying to create a diversion to avoid disclosing that they themselves commissioned studies that were meant to be published, studies conducted by an institute in order to use its-and that is why the opposition-

[Duplication And Overlap, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have had my answers to the questions put to me in February dug out. What I said at the time is this: We presently have action plans with eight provinces and two territories to reduce duplication. During the past year, we signed with the provinces and territories 64 agreements, which have been made public. We therefore have no objection to letting the opposition admire these fine pieces of work. Eight of these agreements were concluded with Quebec before September 12, 1994, and none since, obviously. We continue to use moneys in such a way as to reduce duplication and overlap. That is not just talk, that is what we are doing.

This was my answer. We use taxpayers' money to make the federal government more efficient. We do so in co-operation with the provinces when they want to co-operate, but since the Parti Quebecois came into office, no co-operation has been forthcoming on its part and, unfortunately, it failed to help make services more efficient in the province.

[Overlap And Duplication, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Parizeau quoted a $30 billion figure in his studies, saying that duplication had led to a $30 billion deficit. These figures are wrong and totally unbelievable. These figures have been refuted by many of the studies done by Mr. Le Hir and should not be used if the opposition wants to preserve a minimum of credibility.

[Overlap And Duplication, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will use the very figures quoted by the opposition. At one point during his debate with Daniel Johnson, Mr. Parizeau mentioned that duplication cost $3 billion. He was contradicted by his own advisers, who said at the time that it may have amounted to $250 million.