Michel Guimond

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, your remarks lasted one minute. You just told me I had one minute left, and now I have ten more, and one plus ten makes ten, I guess. No problem. Even if you must be neutral, you are still a Liberal member. In any case I am not questioning your integrity. But you have to know that I will use my time to the very last second. That is a given.

Over the last ten years, productivity at the Boisbriand plant has increased by 70%, compared to an average of 54% in all GM plants. Therefore, it can be said that its performance has been good despite an uncertain future. These figures are not provided by the Bloc Quebecois. You can check them. They come from the annual Harbour Report, put out by a specialized firm that examines productivity reports in the auto industry. From 1989 to 1996 the Boisbriand plant had an average productivity of 55,7%, when GM's average was 40,6%. From 1997 to 2000, productivity increased by 14.5% in Boisbriand whereas the average increase was only 13.4%. The total increase was 70.2%, while the average increase for GM was 54%.

On top of cost advantages, the excellent increase in productivity, despite an uncertain future, is one more proof of the deep commitment of Boisbriand workers to the success of their plant.

I could also mention government support. In 1987, when the plant experienced a few problems, different levels of government, including the Quebec government, made an interest free loan to the Boisbriand plant.

However, since my time is limited, I will skip this issue to concentrate on another aspect.

Earlier, our colleague from Mississauga West, like the good Ontarian that he is—my mother always says that it is easy to talk on a full stomach—does not understand, with 98% of Canada's auto industry concentrated in Ontario, that Quebec wants to save the only assembly plant within its territory.

When we hear comments like the ones made by our colleague from Mississauga West, who talks about political instability, we thank him. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, have the speeches of our colleague from Mississauga West translated into French and we distribute them throughout Quebec because it spurs us on. It motivates us, it puts wood in our stove. I see my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord laughing. He loves it when I use local expressions in my speeches because, even though I represent a riding in the Quebec City area, I am still very proud to be a native of the Saguenay region. Like I said it puts wood in our stove to hear ridiculous comments like those made by my colleague from Mississauga West and my colleague from Fraser Valley, who says that we are asking the government to subsidize profitable plants when it is not the case at all.

On the issue of instability mentioned by the member for Mississauga West, let me say that, in 2000 and 2001, GM made various investments including $1.5 billion in its Springfield plant, in Tennessee; $122 million in its Asumbuja plant, in Portugal; $70 million in its Lansing plant where my Oldsmobile was assembled; $700 million in its Oklahoma City plant; $500 million in its Kansas City plant, and $340 million in a plant located in Russia.

In Russia, they do not speak English but GM invested $340 million in Russia; it invested $33 million in a plant in Lafayette, Indiana; $200 million in a plant in Loughton, England--but there is a good chance they speak English there; and $400 million in a plant in Saragossa, Spain. And that is not counting various other developments in Asia and North America shortly before that. It is clear that GM invests everywhere except in Quebec.

Let us not forget that, when GM decided to build its plant in Sainte-Thérèse, 36 years ago I think, it was not to please us. It was because it realized it could count on highly skilled, qualified and hard-working employees.

During the visit I mentioned earlier, I met guys who said: “I have GM tattooed on my heart”. These people are proud to work for their company. If GM came here, it is because it was a good business decision. It now has one of the best plants.

When Canadian Auto Workers met Ms. Darkes, the former President of GM--I have been told she has been transferred--she said “The problem with the GM plant in Boisbriand is not so much one of cost or productivity as it is of overcapacity”. When one decides to make investments in Portugal, Russia, England or Spain and in five or six plants in the United States or elsewhere, does this mean that there are no productivity or overcapacity problems elsewhere? The question begs the answer.

Let us consider other statistics. Quite recently, on April 16, 2002, General Motors announced a 146% increase in its first quarter profits. This does not take into account exceptional costs and the profits made by the GM subsidiary called Youth Electronics, because of a strong surge in its truck sales in North America.

For the first quarter of 2002, GM recorded profits of $791 million U.S., or $1.39 U.S. per share, compared to $321 million a year earlier.

If we take into account the per capita vehicle production, the Canadian auto industry is the first in the world, ahead of that of the United States. As we know, around 85% of this production is exported to the United States, which accounts to a large extent for the trade surpluses Canada has with its powerful neighbour.

I also remind the House of the statistics mentioned a moment ago by my colleague for Verchères—Les-Patriotes. Last year, Quebecers bought 390,374 new vehicles, for a total value of $10.5 billion.

One can acknowledge that the workers were reasonable. They have acted and continue to act in a professional way. Contrary to what my colleague from Fraser Valley was saying a moment ago, we are not asking for charity nor for grants. We are saying that the federal government should assume its responsibilities, that it should pressure General Motors to keep the only assembly plant outside of Ontario, and located in Quebec, open and maiantain the jobs of these skilled workers.

What we are asking of General Motors and the federal government is consideration and respect for the workers, who are not asking for charity but only want what is rightfully theirs.

[Supply, April 25th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to read the motion that we have been debating since 10:15 this morning. I do not want, through my speech, to answer my colleague from Fraser Valley, as a member of the Canadian Alliance or the former Progressive Conservative/Democratic Representative Coalition. This colleague has changed places several times in the House.

First of all, we must specify that, what the Bloc Quebecois is seeking through this motion is not for tens of millions of dollars in grants for General Motors. This is not the goal. We sometimes have to be educators because some colleagues come to the House for a little while, attend other businesses and think they can just hop on the train. I would like to read the motion once again.

This text reads, and I quote:

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

This is a condemnation of the government.

Right off the top, I would like to congratulate GM workers in Boisbriand who, in spite of the threat of closure that has been hovering over this plant for a number of years—since the Liberals came to power—have kept on working very hard to show GM that their plant is economically viable and must stay open.

These workers must be congratulated. They could have done as others have in other places where very low morale, sabotage, threats, strained labour relations, clashes between clans, and deteriorating equipment have been observed. But no, they have kept on working, rolling up their sleeves and saying they would prove GM was making a mistake, and there is no way their plant will close. These workers, members of the Canadian Auto Workers, Quebec section, must be congratulated.

On behalf of my party, I attended a press conference in the Quebec City area in February. A convoy of workers travelled through Quebec. I have newspaper clippings about this; it was covered by the regional press in every region of Quebec.

I attended this meeting at the FTQ offices in Quebec, and I noticed that people from the local union, but also those from the Canadian Auto Workers headquarters are first and foremost professionals.

I drive a GM product which I bought from the GM dealer in my riding on the Beaupré coast. My car was built in a plant in Lansing, Michigan, I believe, since there is a sticker to this effect on the rear window, and I am quite pleased with it. People in my riding came to me; customers of this dealership were upset about GM's plans to shut the plant down.

Ordinary citizens were saying “There is no way the only assembly plant in Quebec can be shut down. The people of Quebec will not stand for it. There should be a campaign for a Quebec boycott of GM products, to make the company think it over”.

We members of this House, regardless of our party label, whether our friends over there, or those of us over here, were sent here by our fellow citizens to speak for them. They elected us democratically for that purpose. The comment I am going to make is not partisan in any way.

I came here with a mission. I felt obliged to pass the message on to the union representatives at the press conference and the meeting in Quebec City. “People are talking about a campaign to boycott GM products”. The union's response to this made it clear this was not the solution. Its response was very responsible and professional. “On the contrary, we will keep working on productivity, on controlling costs, and on proving that this cannot happen. It makes no sense to shut down a plant that is cost-effective”.

I must again—even if this makes six times in three minutes—congratulate the workers of GM Boisbriand. I do this in order to be properly understood.

GM's success in Quebec is not just because of costs. Strong increases in productivity have played an even greater role. Despite the constant threats regarding the future of the plant which have lowered production substantially in the past five years, the workers at the Boisbriand plant have become more and more productive.

Auto industry productivity experts agree that the facilities, which are operating well under capacity, are at a serious disadvantage.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that I am still able to capture your attention on such an important topic. I am sure that people living in Ahuntsic, in your riding, work at GM.

How can a plant designed to turn out 230,000 vehicles a year remain cost-effective if it produces only 75,000? I am not claiming to be an economist. I worked in human resources for 16 years in the pulp and paper industry. And this is easily understandable. We have a plant capable of turning out 230,000 vehicles and we are asking it to be cost-effective, productive and to cut its costs while producing only 75,000 vehicles a year.

Yet employee performance in Boisbriand is better today than at GM's other sports vehicle plant in Bowlingreen, Kentucky, the plant producing Corvettes. GM's Boisbriand plant produces Camaros and Firebirds, so-called sports models. We need to compare vehicles. If we are going to compare one plant with another, we must pick plants with comparable products.

Madam Speaker, you are letting me know that I have one minute left. I should have told you at the beginning that I was going to use the full time allowed me, 20 minutes. I therefore understand that I still have—

[The Environment, April 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, during the last federal election, the Liberals claimed to be able to defend the interests of Quebec. Today, all stakeholders in Quebec are joining forces to save Alsthom because it is in Quebec's interests to do so.

The Liberal candidate for Verdun says she wants to stand up for Quebec, but her colleagues here are doing nothing to deliver on their promises.

Will the Minister of Justice, the political representative from Quebec, undertake to persuade his cabinet colleagues to do something, or will he continue to keep a low profile and abandon the 650 GEC Alsthom workers to their fate?

[The Environment, April 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the president of the FTQ, Henri Massé, called on all stakeholders in Quebec to unite to save the Alsthom plants in Montreal. Through the Agence métropolitaine de transport, Quebec undertook to do everything possible to save the 650 jobs at Alsthom, and the Bloc Quebecois intends to do likewise.

The only player doing nothing is the Liberal government. Will the Minister of Justice, who is the political minister from Quebec, tell us whether the government intends to impose environmental standards on the rail industry and propose tax incentives in order to ensure that this company survives?

[Middle East, April 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, given that there was yet another suicide bombing this morning in Jerusalem, with many innocent victims, does the minister agree that if the international community and Canada want to give the peace process a chance to work, they would do well to support the proposal put forward by the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan?

[Middle East, April 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, under the plan proposed by Germany to restore peace to the Middle East, only a political approach with the active support of the international community can resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Given the UN secretary general's call this morning for an interposition force to be sent the Middle East, which is what the German plan is also recommending, will the Minister of Foreign Affairs tell the House what real measures, and I do not mean vague hopes, Canada has come up with so far—

[Committees of the House, March 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to make a brief comment regarding the report tabled by—

[Games of La Francophonie, March 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming clear that the Minister of Public Works and Government Services has inherited a political hot potato from former minister Gagliano. But this is a matter in which he is involved.

We will try another little question. We have in our hands documents showing that the Canada Information Office paid the organizing committee $600,000, much of it for advertising activities.

Can the minister assure us that no part of this $600,000 was paid as a commission to Rhéal Leroux, the games' general manager?

[Games of La Francophonie, March 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport told the House that he would conduct an investigation and that he would answer all questions concerning the organizing committee for the Games of La Francophonie.

Even though a Canadian commissioner is refusing to comment on the regularity of the committee's financial books, we learned this morning that there will be no investigation.

Can the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport explain why he went back on his word, and is he still sure that he will be able to answer all questions about the organization of these games?

[Privilege, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the question of privilege raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is a clear case. There are three colleagues involved in this question of privilege on which you need to make a ruling. While taking nothing away from the presentations by the other Canadian Alliance members, I was particularly sensitive to, and appreciative of, the approach taken by the hon. member for Portage--Lisgar in his presentation.

We must acknowledge that there is a direct connection between the fact that the hon. member for Portage--Lisgar himself has submitted a question of privilege concerning the minister of defence, a question currently under study by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, on which I sit, and the question raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.

In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, you have before you a clear case of a member who is the victim of intimidation—I would be tempted to go still further and say harassment—by another colleague. He has merely made use of a parliamentary privilege to which he is entitled as an elected member of this House.

I am certain that you will give this question all due attention and will examine it with the care which we are accustomed to seeing you use on such matters, and which we are entitled to expect from a Speaker.

In connection with the questions raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister regarding a release that I have no intention of rereading—to avoid doing indirectly what cannot be done directly—and the comments made by colleagues outside of the House, through a press release, I would respectfully submit that certain government members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs do this.

Allow me to quote the member for Halifax West, from an article published in the Globe and Mail on February 28, 2002, entitled “Eggleton Committee concludes inquiry”, signed by Allison Dunfield. In this article, the member for Halifax West is quoted. This quote is placed in quotation marks. Therefore, he uttered the words; he cannot therefore deny having spoken them. The reporter quotes him with quotation marks. The member for Halifax West told a CBC Newsworld reporter, and I quote, “I think it has become a huge bit of a circus”.

The member for Halifax West should also then be cited for a question of privilege for having commented the issue outside the House.

Mr. Speaker, to conclude, I would like to thank you for the numerous times that you prevented the members of the Canadian Alliance from repeating the word “deliberately”. When we drafted the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs this week, the Liberal majority said to us repeatedly “The notice of motion, the order of reference do not mention the word 'deliberately'”. You yourself mentioned that if we use the word “deliberately” in reference to comments made by a colleague, it would be considered unparliamentary.

This explains why, in the order of reference for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the word “deliberately” does not appear. We have our work cut out for us.

I thank you for the countless times you said that the word “deliberately” needed not be considered. This will be extremely useful when we consult the blues and prepare our report.