Gérard Asselin

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Martin Cauchon.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Martin Cauchon.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government must get involved concretely and immediately. We cannot afford, on such an issue, to wait three or four elections before responding.

The hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry promised his constituents bridges. He can show that he effectively discussed this with the Minister of Transportation and in committee and that this could be done within three or four elections. However, we cannot allow bridges to be built in the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry while we are losing some 1,400 or 1,500 jobs in Boisbriand, through the closing of the GM plant.

What we need is for the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry to ask the minister and the Prime Minister of Canada, who is from Quebec, to get together with the Bloc Quebecois in defending the interests of GM and GM workers and also to ask that the federal government pay attention to GM's needs, that is what is necessary after Quebec already invested $340 million and was able to do a little more.

They should say: “What will you need? We, the federal government, are making a commitment, like we made a commitment with the United States after September 11 by saying to president Bush that we would give him our unconditional support”. This cost us lives, equipment and money. Is the government able to give GM, in the Montreal region, the same thing it promised the United States, that is unconditional support?

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, the member for Beauharnois--Salaberry.

I am perfectly willing to look ahead, through the front windshield, but I realize that we are just about to loose the one and only vehicle assembly plant in Quebec. I also agree to look forward through the windshield to see the 1,400 jobs that will be lost next September. While driving along, still looking ahead of me, nothing prevents me from looking in the rearview mirror and seeing the Liberal members from Quebec, who say they were members of the Standing Committee on Finance and the Standing Committee on Industry and were involved in the work done at committee level. However, it is important to realize that, from this point of view, the Liberal members from Quebec showed how ineffective they are.

In real terms, what is the Liberal federal government willing to invest, in terms of money, financial support or any other acceptable contribution, to rescue the 1,400 jobs at GM and to keep the industry in Quebec? In real terms, what is the federal government willing to do, today, to save the GM plant in Boisbriand?

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the member for Acadie—Bathurst, as well as the previous speaker with whom he shared his time. They gave two excellent speeches that showed that people are not only concerned about the auto industry, but also about employment.

We are talking here about auto workers who are paid hourly wages. Should the Boisbriand plant shut down, 1,400 direct jobs would be affected, as well as many indirect jobs. It is inconceivable that this could happen in Quebec, where we produce electricity, where we produce aluminum, the metal of the future, and where we have highly skilled auto workers.

It is also unacceptable to see all the jobs that are being lost in the auto industry in our ridings. Ford dealerships—even though Ford builds its vehicles in Ontario, it is still in Canada—have difficulty expanding. Chrysler dealerships are also experiencing the same problems with regard to expansion, even though the situation seems to be getting better. And then there is GM. A few GM dealerships have had to close down in my riding.

During the same period, Toyota dealerships have been expanding. We see new Honda dealerships opening their doors or existing ones expanding. And there is also Volkswagen and Hyundai. We have to wonder whether the manufacturers of these imported vehicles are supported by other governments while our government is sitting idly by. It is doing nothing about softwood lumber issue and about the auto industry. Meanwhile, the popularity of the Liberal government is on the rise, as is the unemployment rate.

I would like to hear what the member for Acadie—Bathurst has to say about that.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Alliance just talked about tax cuts with regard to this particular issue involving GM. For the government to cut taxes, people have to pay taxes. To pay taxes, people must work. If people do not work, they will not pay taxes. The federal government will have to pay employment insurance benefits to these people who, one day, will end up on welfare.

The problem is real. We do not want to know how to put caramel in a Caramilk bar. The problem is real, and it is urgent.

What solution does the Canadian Alliance want to propose to us today to let the Minister of Industry know that the federal government must act immediately? Opposition parties must band together and tell the federal government that it is not doing its job on this issue.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague from the Canadian Alliance.

I do not know if the member is aware that GM is the only auto and auto parts manufacturer in Quebec and that thousands of direct and indirect jobs are at stake.

I repeat, there is only one auto manufacturing plant in Quebec. The Prime Minister of Canada promised us jobs. What we want is not that jobs be created in that industry, but rather that thousands of direct and indirect jobs that are threatened be saved.

The minister should table an action plan and a timetable, a recovery plan. We know that the GM plant is supposed to shut down in the fall of 2002.

What does the Canadian Alliance, which is hoping to become the government one day, have to propose as a concrete and immediate measure to save GM, the only auto manufacturer in Quebec, and to save thousands of jobs?

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, GM is not to be blamed for the economic instability in Quebec any more than it is to be blamed for the falling dollar.

Let us go back a bit in time and talk about QCM, Quebec Cartier Mining. When iron mines on the North Shore were hit by a slowdown and in danger of shutting down, and even when they did shut down, it was under Brian Mulroney. Also, a Canadian prime minister created political and economic instability by failing to conclude the Charlottetown and Meech Lake accords. Nothing was working in this Canada, and this led to the creation of the Bloc Quebecois.

The Conservative member keeps repeating that the Bloc Quebecois is creating political instability. But, before his time, a prime minister here in the House had been a president of Iron Ore, which, with QCM, shut down the mines on the North Shore. He did not succeed in concluding the Charlottetown and Meech Lake accords, so they are responsible for creating a difficult political and economic situation.

Is the hon. member for Verchères not starting to realize that today, one must stop looking into the rearview mirror and start looking ahead?

[Supply, March 14th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade did his best to rend his garments, shout and carry on in this House in order to demonstrate to this House that the minister and the Prime Minister have done their job as far as softwood lumber negotiations are concerned.

In the regions, as far as the lumber producers are concerned, whether in Rivière-du-Loup, the south shore of the St. Lawrence, or the north shore, we have a problem with this negotiation. The Canadian and American governments are pitted against each other.

This has been going on for five years. There has been an amber light on for the past five years. The Americans criticize the way our softwood lumber is encroaching on their market. The Minister of International Trade of the day, and the present minister, as well as the Prime Minister, who has always been the same person, have never done their job as far as negotiations in connection with the American market are concerned.

When free trade came along and Canada decided to belong to NAFTA in the days of the Conservatives, the Liberals were critical of free trade. Free trade should be continued as it was. But the problem is not limited to softwood lumber, it also affects hothouse tomatoes and dairy products.

This is what I wish to ask the parliamentary secretary. I would like him to quite simply admit to the House, from his seat, that the Canadian government is powerless before the huge American juggernaut and that when the time comes to negotiate on something as vital as softwood lumber, we grovel to the American government.

[Softwood Lumber, March 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, since the Minister for International Trade is floating all sorts of possibilities, will he at least confirm that Canada will maintain the complaints it filed with the WTO and the NAFTA panels?