Jean H. Leroux

[Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments made by the hon. member from New Brunswick, and I must say that it is true, that we on this side are very proud. We are very proud of our leader, because our leader has the courage to tell the truth in this House. All Bloc members are proud of their leader because, during the election campaign, he said things that were true, put historic events in their context, and made us proud of being members of the Bloc Quebecois.

The hon. member told us that she wanted to build and not to destroy. The goal of the Bloc Quebecois, of all Quebec sovereignists, is also to build, but to build Quebec, our homeland, our country, so that it can fulfil our aspirations. At the same time, we want to work with the rest of Canada.

We have proposed a formula for partnership with the rest of Canada. It was extraordinary. The Fathers of the Canadian Confederation, who represented Lower Canada, would tell us that we are right, over 120 years later, to propose changes in North America north of the U.S. because the current system no longer works.

The Prime Minister's proposal is a case in point. He cannot even approach his provincial counterparts to try to get something enshrined in the Constitution. All they are offering us is a motion of the House that is practically meaningless, that is not worth the paper it is printed on.

It is important, I think, to weigh our words in this House, to show Quebec a little respect. Quebec was one of the four provinces that founded this country, but the time has come to move on. The rest of Canada should understand this.

[Supply, November 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, perhaps then he ought to have taken a little less time, so that I could have as long as he. But I respect your decision.

I merely wanted to say, in closing, that without the members present here in the House when the Conservatives passed the Free Trade Agreement-we know that the Liberals were opposed, Ontario was opposed. Why? Because Ontario has always been Number One. So, without the Quebec members-this is proof that Quebecers have a world view. We are open to the rest of the world, and we want to be able to negotiate, to trade with everyone.

[Supply, November 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it seems fairly obvious that the hon. member considers former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau his guru, since he has referred to him four times within one short presentation.

What we in Quebec are demanding, and I use the word "demand" advisedly, is to have equity, to see Quebec treated equitably, to see Quebec receive what it is entitled to. It is true that by around the end of the Seventies, an aerospace system was in place in Quebec, and now the government across the way cannot be allowed to make use of legislation to kill it off bit by bit. This government must not be allowed to use dubious laws, unwanted laws, to cause Quebec's aerospace industry to disappear. I feel that this is important, and those in the industry say the same. It is one thing to establish an aerospace industry, but quite another thing to destroy one, and that is what is being done now with the legislation being passed and the way Canadian and Quebec companies are being treated.

Personally, I have no problem at all with insecurity, despite what the hon. member said about my seeming to be insecure. What I want is to see Quebec treated equitably, fairly, more fairly than at present. I think it is important-and there is no question of insecurity in working on behalf of one's constituents, the people of Quebec who elected us to this House-and I think it is important to say so.

Madam Speaker, the hon. member took seven minutes to ask his question, and it seems to me I ought to be able to respond to it.

[Supply, November 21st, 1995]

It would indeed seem that, here, in Canada, it is quite a different story, depending on which side of the House you are sitting.

Also, one can wonder whether or not the government is getting ready to offer a "sweet deal" to this company.

At any rate, let us come back to the remarks made by the defence minister on Radio-Canada's program Enjeux in April. As I said earlier, the minister had stated on that occasion that Quebec was receiving its fair share of defence procurement. He said so. Now, if Quebec, and Oerlikon of Saint-Jean in particular, is literally excluded from the $2 billion APC acquisition contract, which was awarded to Ontario, and if Quebec is not guaranteed any benefits arising from the $600 million search and rescue helicopter contract, what does this leave as Quebec's fair share?

That is hard to predict, since the federal government is announcing its defence acquisitions in a piecemeal fashion, one slice of baloney at a time, in the hope, of course, that taxpayers will find the pill easier to swallow.

That way the bill does not seem as steep, but if you add everything the result is the same. However, according to the most recent statements made by the defence minister regarding that issue, we can presume that the government is about to buy, at a cost of more than half a billion dollars plus several other considerations, four used submarines that England is no longer interested in. That country wants to get rid of these submarines and we are going to buy them.

We will buy four old submarines which are no longer in use. This is what we will get. We will then be better protected. What do you think Quebec could get out of such a deal? As I just said, there is every indication that these are British submarines. Quebec will obviously not get anything out of that deal. But it will have to pay its share, its 25 per cent. Quebec always gets 13, 14 or 15 per cent of everything, but it pays 25 per cent. This is unacceptable.

The government's new policy no longer requires any Canadian content, unless of course it applies to a procurement contract which can help Ontario increase its large share of federal defence spending. This creates a double standard. There is one policy for Ontario and one for the rest of Canada. I can only conclude that Quebec which, as we all know, is far from receiving its fair share of federal military spending, will continue to be greatly and unfairly penalized by this government.

It is no wonder that more and more Quebecers feel that the only alternative is, to be sure, a sovereign Quebec. Quebec's sovereignty will soon become a reality and, when that happens, Quebecers will turn their backs on these injustices, which cost them dearly.

In conclusion, I have no choice but to blame the federal government strongly for giving up the Canadian content requirements in military procurement contracts. These requirements were among the last guarantees that, some day, Quebec might get its fair share-no more and no less-like the others in Canada, that it might be recognized as a province, and that it might get what it is entitled to.

Therefore, I join with our defence critic, the hon. member for Charlesbourg, in blaming the government for its current action.

[Supply, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak about the equity, or inequity if you prefer, of which Quebec is a victim with respect to military procurement.

The recent government decisions to purchase new armoured personnel carriers and 15 search and rescue helicopters are far from reassuring to Quebec. It is now a well known fact that Quebec is far from receiving its fair share of federal defence spending, and this has been the case for some years.

All indications are that this inequality will increase rather than decrease. In fact, the new National Defence procurement policy is likely to affect Quebec even more than before.

My colleague, the member for Charlesbourg, clearly demonstrated this morning just how much Quebec is a victim of the federal government's double standard.

I would like to add my voice to his in severely criticizing the government for dropping any requirement for Canadian content from its most recent military procurement policy. What is even worse is that it refuses to put into place any true program for defence conversion. It is very easy to imagine what the consequences will be.

The consequences are that this new government policy will directly endanger the entire aerospace industry. We all know that this industry is mostly concentrated in Montreal, Quebec.

My Bloc colleagues will have the opportunity later today to address more specifically the important issue of defence conversion.

I, for one, want to underline the negative impact the federal government's new policy will have on Quebec. I should, however, start by reminding you that Quebec has been cheated out of a minimum $650 million a year on average in the distribution of federal defence spending in the last 15 years at least, and I will not go any further because it could be worse.

This does not come from me but from the defence department's own statements and figures. In concrete terms, it means that, in the last 15 years, Quebec has received only 17.9 per cent of all defence spending, including 13 per cent of infrastructure costs and 15 per cent of personnel expenditures.

I should also remind you of the conclusion reached by a defence department official, Charles Trottier, in a study he released last February. In the last 15 years, Quebec has received 27 per cent less than its fair share of defence spending. Mr. Trottier compared this loss to the James Bay project or $10 billion over 15 years. This represents a $10 billion shortfall for Quebec. In terms of jobs, this represents a loss to Quebec of 15,000 direct jobs and 25,000

indirect jobs per year on average: nothing less than 40,000 direct and indirect jobs.

In fact, if distribution had been fair, Quebec should have twice as many defence facilities as it now has. Twice as many. Such injustices to Quebec are systemic within the armed forces. This demonstration clearly shows that the federal system is fundamentally flawed, as I will try to explain to you.

Even the minister of defence confirmed that Quebec has been treated unfairly. When he appeared on Radio-Canada's Enjeux last April, the minister said about Quebec that they could not afford the luxury of being totally fair.

I myself asked the minister how he could have the gall to consider fairness a luxury. "Fair"-that is all we ask-to Quebec. Guess what he replied to me? In complete contradiction with his own remarks and suggesting that Quebec was favoured by capital expenditures, which is not true, he said, and I quote: "The province of Quebec generally leads the country in its share of defence capital acquisition expenditures and probably will continue to do so in the future when the new defence acquisitions are announced."

Let us talk about these new defence acquisitions that Quebec is allegedly getting its fair share of. Let us look at this. What are the facts? We know that the government has taken a piecemeal approach to announcing such acquisitions so that the pill will not be too bitter for the taxpayers.

Let us start with the new armoured vehicles. What is Quebec's share of this huge contract worth more than $2 billion? Try as we may to find it, Quebec's fair share is nowhere to be found. Why? Because it just does not exist.

The fact of the matter is that the federal government awarded this contract, directly and without a tender call, to the GM plant in London, Ontario. Quebec companies were not even invited to tender for this contract.

Worse yet, they are not even guaranteed a chance of putting a bid with GM Ontario for subcontracts. But everyone is well aware of the fact that Oerlikon of Saint-Jean, in the riding next to mine, in Quebec, has all the expertise required to carry out at the very least the turret part of the contract.

My colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Jean, will certainly have an opportunity sometime today to get into this issue of Oerlikon. In spite of the official opposition's pressing plea, this government, the Liberal government absolutely refused to require GM Ontario to go to tender for its subcontracts.

As a result, Ontario is the only province benefiting from this great $2 billion contract. Two billion dollars is a lot of money. All that for Ontario, a province which has a very strong majority in the Liberal caucus. So, when the minister says that Quebec will benefit from the new defence procurement, we can only conclude that it will certainly not be through the armoured vehicles contract.

But let us give the minister another chance. Let us take a look at the procurement contract for the 15 new search and rescue helicopters. Perhaps we will find that Quebec gets its fair share in that deal. After all, it would only make sense, since Quebec was the big loser following the cancellation of the previous contract to buy the EH-101 helicopters. We are not talking about a $2 billion contract like the one awarded to Ontario for the armoured vehicles, without any call for tenders, but it is nevertheless a deal worth $600 million. And $600 million is not peanuts.

Let us ask ourselves this question: Will Quebec, as the defence minister claims, get its fair share of that second military procurement contract? Again, anyone could foresee the answer to that. Quebec has no guarantee whatsoever that this will be the case. Why? Because the government suddenly changed its military procurement policy.

This is a strange coincidence, is it not? While the aerospace industry is primarily located in Quebec, the government suddenly decides to call for tenders, contrary to what it did in the case of the armoured vehicles contract, which was awarded to Ontario without any call for tenders.

This is ironic, especially considering that Quebec was the province most affected by the cancellation of the EH-101 helicopter contract. By the way, that was a $4.8 billion contract.

If I raised that issue, I would probably be told that we should not oppose the government's decision to call for tenders, since it is in the best interests of taxpayers, whose fiscal burden is already heavy enough, and we certainly agree with that. Our public finances are indeed in bad shape. The state itself is in bad shape. And that is not our fault.

The Liberals were going to do marvellous things. What marvellous things? I can use either an exclamation mark or a question mark. In all sincerity, I will tell you that it is surely the case. But then why did the government use a different approach in the case of the armoured vehicles contract? Why did the Liberal government not apply the same policy in the two cases? We are still waiting for an answer.

And why does the government refuse to require that GM Ontario allow Quebec businesses to bid on those subcontracts? Again, we are still waiting for answers that are not coming.

Wise observers might point out ironically that what it good for Ontario is bad for Quebec or for the rest of Canada. The problem is that the minister lacks the courage to say so publicly. We realize that he comes from Ontario; that is obvious. In any case, if we take for granted that calling for tenders is okay where Quebec is concerned but that the same rule does not seem to apply to Ontario, one question remains relevant. This question is why, in the case of the search and rescue helicopter contract, the government has

suddenly dropped all Canadian content requirements. This is rather peculiar, especially since it could have disastrous consequences not only for Quebec businesses but also for Canadian businesses.

Professor Yves Bélanger, who is also director of the University of Quebec in Montreal's research group on the defence industry, was quoted in yesterday's Le Devoir as saying that, by dropping the Canadian content requirement, the Liberals have taken away from Canadian businesses the best argument they had to force multinationals to negotiate partnerships with them. We are now familiar with the word ``partnership'', which came up repeatedly during the referendum campaign. Partnerships are the future.

The spokesperson for the Aerospace Industries Association of Canada also agrees. Let me read you what he said in relation to the government's new procurement policy. He is what he said about it: "If you push it to the extreme, all Canadian development programs would disappear, making it extremely difficult to maintain our defence industry." Thanks to whom? To the Liberal government.

These concerns are especially justified, since, according to analysts, none of the manufacturers competing for this contract are from Quebec or Canada. Apparently, there are two American companies: Boeing and Sikorsky, and three European companies: Eurocopter, Agusta-Westland and the Russian manufacturer Kamov.

In the case of Agusta, there is cause for concern because serious accusations of corruption have been made against this company in Europe. But not only does the government refuse to investigate the circumstances of the EH-101 contract award, as requested by the now Minister of Human Resources Development when he was in opposition-

[Remembrance Day, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, which forms the official opposition in this House, I am pleased to rise this afternoon in honour of Remembrance Day. Tradition dictates that, every November 11, we take a few moments to remember those who have served in the two world wars and in the Korean war.

Of course, we must also remember those who served in the numerous UN peacekeeping missions. Remembrance Day is especially significant this year since last spring marked the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. Today, we want to thank all those who served at the front, the sailors and airmen and women from all regions of Canada, the members of the merchant navy, the

nurses, and all the men and women who risked or gave their lives to overcome tyranny.

We must never forget that over 100,000 young Canadians and Quebecers lost their lives in the two major global conflicts, while hundreds of others died in Korea and in various peacekeeping missions. Unfortunately, many bloody conflicts are still raging throughout the world. Let us think about all those who are responsible for keeping the peace in the world, in particular the Canadian peacekeepers.

One of the main roles of the Canadian Forces at the international level is to participate in peacekeeping operations. This is an invaluable asset and international achievement for Canada.

On behalf of all Bloc members, I wish to congratulate all members of the various Legion branches. We sincerely thank them for honouring the memory of the young Canadians and Quebecers who left everything behind and went overseas to fight for peace and freedom.

Today we remember the selfless sacrifices made by those to whom we owe this legacy of freedom and democracy.

The heavy human casualties and the great suffering of all those affected by these endless wars are beyond comprehension.

As the Leader of the Official Opposition said in marking the 50th anniversary of the end of the second world war, who can describe the terrible pain of the mothers and fathers whose son was killed in the prime of his life? And what about the widows and orphans, the brothers and sisters forever deprived of a loved one who left one day for a faraway country to meet his destiny as a sacrificed hero?

Like those who gave their lives, all these brave people also fought so that there would be no more wars and that future generations would be spared the attendant atrocities, suffering and upheaval.

This was, however, the price we had to pay for our commitment to peace and democracy. It is precisely because our young soldiers shared these values that they felt compelled to defend them overseas.

We must therefore sincerely thank again all those who died and, of course, all those who survived these tragedies.

Let us pay them a vibrant tribute and honour their memory.

[Purchase Of Helicopters, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since the Liberals condemned Agusta when the first contract was signed and requested an inquiry into this whole matter, how can the minister of defence explain that he has not deemed it appropriate to completely exclude Agusta from the new bidding process?

[Purchase Of Helicopters, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the defence minister.

Yesterday, the Liberal government announced that a new contract for the purchase of new search and rescue helicopters will soon be awarded, to replace part of the previous EH-101 contract that the Liberal Party cancelled as soon as it took office.

Since the government has yet to reach an agreement over the penalties following the cancellation of the EH-101 helicopters contract with the Agusta, why has it not excluded this company from the bidding process?

[National Defence, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is right when he says we were part of that committee, but the Bloc Quebecois proposed far more substantial cuts.

When we realize that the aerospace industry is mainly based in the Montreal region, what explanation does the minister have for the fact that, in the case of the 15 helicopters, there is no Canadian content requirement and that two months ago, the same minister

awarded, without tender, a $2 billion contract, for armoured personnel carriers to Ontario?

[National Defence, November 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.

After making a big production of cancelling the huge EH-101 deal two years ago, the Minister of National Defence now goes ahead and buys 15 search and rescue helicopters, the same number the Conservatives planned to buy, without any guarantees they will be less expensive.

Since the minister refuses to say anything about purchasing combat helicopters, does this mean that, to make its policies more palatable to the taxpayers, the government is making these announcements piecemeal and plans to invest in a program as ambitious as the EH-101 deal?