CONTENTS
Thursday, October 24, 1996
Motion moved and agreed to 5643
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 5653
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 5668
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 5675
Mr. Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry) 5677
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont) 5678
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 5678
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5680
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5681
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 5682
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 5682
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5682
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 5683
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 5685
Motion moved and agreed to 5687
Consideration resumed of the motion, of the amendmentand of the amendment to the amendment
5687
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 5698
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 5704
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 5705
Division on motion deferred 5706
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 5706
5643
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, October 24, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General
transmitting Supplementary Estimates (A) for the fiscal year
ending March 31, 1997, was presented by the Hon. the President of
the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker of the House.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to section 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official
languages the government's response to 14 petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 81(5) and 81(6), I would like to table a
motion to refer the estimates to the standing committees of the
House.
Therefore, I move:
That Supplementary Estimates (A) for 1996-97 be referred to the several
Standing Committees of the House as follows:
As there is a lengthy list attached to the motion, if it is agreeable
to the House, I would ask that the list be printed in
Hansard as if it
had been read.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's note: the list referred to above is as follows:]
(1) to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development
-Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 1a, 5a, 15a, L30a, 35a, 40a,
45a and 50a
(2) to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food
-Agriculture and Agri-Food, Votes 1a, 5a and 10a
(3) to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
-Canadian Heritage, Votes 1a, 5a, 10a, 25a, 30a, 35a, 37a, 40a, 65a, 75a, 85a,
105a, 120a and 135a
(4) to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development
-Environment, Votes 1a, 10a and 15a
(5) to the Standing Committee on Finance
-Finance, Votes 21a and 35a
-National Revenue, Votes 1a and 5a
(6) to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
-Fisheries and Oceans, Votes 1a and 5a
(7) to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade
-Foreign Affairs, Votes 1a, 5a, 15a, 20a and 31a
(8) to the Standing Committee on Government Operations
-Privy Council, Vote 1a
-Public Service Commission, Vote 130a
-Public Works and Government Services, Votes 2a, 15a, 16a, 17a, 18a, 19a, 25a
and 36a
-Treasury Board, Votes 1a and 10a
(9) to the Standing Committee on Health
-Health, Votes 1a, 10a, 20a and 30a
(10) to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development
-Human Resources Development, Votes 1a, 10a, 15a and 25a
(11) to the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities
-Justice, Vote 21a
(12) to the Standing Committee on Industry
-Industry, Votes 1a, 5a, 20a, 40a, 45a, 60a, 65a, 80a, 85a, 90a, 95a, 105a and 125a
(13) to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs
-Justice, Votes 1a, 15a, 20a, 30a, 35a and 40a
-Solicitor General, Votes 1a, 5a, 15a, 25a, 45a and 50a
5644
(14) to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
-Veterans Affairs, Votes 1a and 10a
(15) to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources
-Natural Resources, Votes 20a and 27a
(16) to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
-Finance, Vote 30a
(17) to the Standing Committee on Transport
-Transport, Votes 1a, 5a, 10a, 33a, 35a, 37a and 45a
(18) to the Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages
-Privy Council, Vote 25a
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I
move:
That the Standing Committee on Government Operations be designated
committee for the purposes of section 20 of the Seized Property Management Act.
There was previous discussion some months ago about this and
this is the appropriate committee for the designation. I was
wondering if we could have unanimous consent for this.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present to
this House two petitions. In the first the petitioners draw to the
attention of the House that Canadians of all ages view our health
care system as a defining element of Canadian society.
The petitioners therefore call on Parliament to continue to
uphold the fundamental principles of the Canada Health Act so that
public health care remains accessible, comprehensive, portable,
universal and publicly administered.
(1010 )
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners draw to the attention
of the House that the plight of endangered species in Canada is a
national problem that continues to worsen and that there are
compelling ecological, economic and ethical reasons to save
Canada's irreplaceable wild species.
Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to enact enforceable
legislation which will protect Canada's endangered species.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it
is a pleasure on this day to see the blue ribbon honouring Canada's
peacekeepers.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two
petitions. The first concerns taxation of the family and it comes
from Winnipeg, Manitoba.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing
the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable
profession which has not been recognized for its value to our
society.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
provide care in the home for preschool children, the chronically ill,
the aged or the disabled.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition comes from Kingston, Ontario and it concerns
the labelling on alcoholic beverages.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the
consumption of alcoholic beverages may cause health problems or
impair one's ability and specifically that fetal alcohol syndrome
and other alcohol related birth defects are 100 per cent preventable
by avoiding alcohol consumption during pregnancy.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to enact
legislation to require health warning labels to be placed on the
containers of all alcoholic beverages to caution expectant mothers
and others of the risks associated with alcohol consumption.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty to present three
petitions to the House containing signatures of constituents from
my riding of Stormont-Dundas.
5645
In the first instance the petitioners call on Parliament to enact
Bill C-205 at the earliest opportunity to provide in Canadian law
that no criminal profits from committing a crime.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition contains signatures from members of the
United Senior Citizens of Ontario who request that Parliament
regulate the longstanding Canadian practice of marketing generic
drugs in a size, shape and colour which is similar to that of brand
name equivalents.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the final petition contains 150 pages of signatures from
constituents of Stormont-Dundas.
The petitioners call on Parliament to amend legislation so that
Bell Canada efforts to restructure local phone billing procedures
will not disadvantage senior citizens, volunteer community
organizations and citizens on fixed incomes.
* * *
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
Question No. 25 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 25-Mr. Williams:
For each department, agency and crown corporation, how many employees,
including parliamentary agents, governor in council appointees, armed forces
personnel, and RCMP personnel, receive a living allowance for a second residence
and/or a transportation allowance from the residence to the place of work where
distance exceeds 40 km?
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I am informed as
follows: This question has been interpreted as those who reveive a
living allowance and/or a transportation allowance for a period of
one year or more as initially requested under Question Q-117, 35th
Parliament, 1st Session: Living allowance: Twelve months or
more; Transportation allowance: Over 40 km for one year or more.
The following information provided by several departments,
agencies and crown corporations excludes the short
term/temporary dual residence assistance. Please note that foreign
posts are not included.
In the context of the above interpretation, other departments,
agencies and crown corporations have no information on this
subject.
Allowance
Living Transportation
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 10 4
Atomic Energy Control Board 1 8
Bank of Canada 1 1
Canada Council 1 None
Canada Labour Relations Board 1 None
Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation None 6
Canada Post Corporation Proprietary Information
Canadian Dairy Commission 1 1
Canadian Heritage 7 34
Canadian International Trade Tribunal 2 2
Canadian Security Intelligence Service None 41
Canadian Space Agency 1 None
Citizenship and Immigration 18 49
Correctional Service of Canada 13 6
Defence Construction Canada None 4
Environment Canada 4 1
Farm Credit Corporation None 3
Federal Office of Regional
Development (Quebec) 1 None
Fisheries and Oceans 5 None
Health Canada 9 29
Human Resources Development
Canada 13 1
Immigration and Refugee Board 3 None
Indian and Northern Affairs Canada 9 2
Industry Canada 3 None
National Defence 220 1691
National Film Board of Canada 1 None
National Research Council Canada None 18
National Transportation Agency 1 None
Natural Resources Canada 1 None
Office of the Commissioner of
Official Languages 1 None
Public Service Commission 2 None
Public Works and Government
Services Canada 6 2
Revenue Canada 36 57
Royal Canadian Mounted Police 15 49
Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada 1 None
Statistics Canada 1 1
Transport Canada 42 24
Transportation Safety Board
of Canada 1 None
Treasury Board of Canada 1 None
Veterans Affairs Canada 5 None
VIA Rail Canada Inc. None 2
Western Economic Diversification
Canada 1 None
[English]
Mr. Zed: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be
allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
5646
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
if Question No. 26 could be made an Order for Return, this return
would be tabled immediately.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 26-Mr. Williams:
What is the rank, position or title of each recipient of second residence allowance
and/or transportation allowance from residence to place of work and, what is the cost
per individual recipient and method of taxation of these benefits?
(Return tabled.)
_____________________________________________
5646
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ) moved:
That this House recognize Montreal as the economic mainspring of Quebec
society and, therefore, condemn the federal government's lack of concrete initiatives
in supporting the Montreal area economy, primarily: the federal government's
under-investment in research and development; its inequitable allocation of federal
purchases of goods and services; its lack of willingness to support Montreal as a
major financial centre in North America and its termination of Montreal's role as a
major transportation centre.
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I
wish to inform you that, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), the
members of the official opposition will divide their speaking time
in two, each speaking for 10 minutes.
(1015)
Mr. Gauthier: Madam Speaker, in politics, the greatest quality,
in my opinion, is sincerity, honesty. When politicians address their
electors or the public in general, I believe they have the duty to
speak as truthfully as possible about situations as they see them but
they must meet certain standards regarding what they say about the
reality of the situation.
Yesterday, in this House, we questioned the Prime Minister. A
few days ago, he had addressed a group of citizens in Montreal,
where he told the chamber of commerce that the federal
government was so concerned about the development of their city,
that the federal government was so terribly upset about the
financial difficulties Montreal is facing and, finally, that the federal
government was taking oh so effective steps to support of
Montreal's development. That is basically what the Prime Minister
said.
As the official opposition, and concerned as we are about what
happens to Montreal and even more so about what happens to the
people of Montreal, who all too often find themselves jobless and
living in poverty, we decided to check whether the statement made
by the Prime Minister before the chamber of commerce had any
basis whatsoever. Expressing concern about a city's difficulties
before its chamber of commerce, in itself, is not enough to solve
the problem. It takes more than the Prime Minister of Canada
paying lip service to a healthy economy in Montreal, Quebec's
metropolis, for economic prosperity to be restored there. It takes
some concrete actions.
We asked the Prime Minister if he was prepared to act on this,
that or the other issue. We referred to very specific issues that may
help restore a healthy economy in Montreal, issues we will discuss
in a moment. Not once did we get a clear answer from the Prime
Minister, a positive and firm answer like: ``In my capacity as the
Prime Minister, I undertake to implement this initiative, which will
create jobs for the Montreal area''. Not once did we succeed in
obtaining this kind of a commitment during oral question period.
Yesterday, to my colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, the
Prime Minister gave an answer that spoke volumes about his vision
of Quebec development. The hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve's question was this:
Why does the Prime Minister not agree to making federal procurement in Quebec
proportionate to the size of its population?
Why would Canada not adopt a procurement policy based on
equity, so that the purchases made with taxpayers' money are
distributed according to the relative demographic weight of the
various regions? This, I think, would be an interesting way of
stimulating the economy in every region of Canada and not always
buying, by a strange coincidence, from the same source.
The Prime Minister's answer was this:
Will the hon. member rise in this House and tell the public that, under the
equalization payment system through which the Canadian government provides
assistance to any region of Canada experiencing financial difficulties-last year,
because its revenue was below a certain level, Quebec actually received an extra
$500 million from the federal government?
The truth was out. For the Prime Minister of Canada, being fair
to a region like Quebec, being fair to Montreal and helping with its
development, means equalization payments. For the Prime
Minister of Canada, being fair to Quebec means giving Quebec a
share equal to the taxes it pays to Ottawa.
(1020)
For the Prime Minister, real development that comes from
producing goods and providing services is good for some regions
of Canada, while, for other regions, fairness, material well-being
and development mean equalization payments.
What the people listening to us must know is that, indeed,
equalization payments are used when a region is unable to generate
its own wealth. When a region finds itself in a difficult economic
situation, these payments provide needed assistance.
5647
When the Prime Minister comes to Montreal to shed a tear over
the issue of development, he does not think about concrete plans
or a shift in government policy, about real situations or a new way
of looking at things, but about equalization payments.
Even though any economic development the federal government
may foster through its purchases and its R and D spending just
happens to favour Ontario-90 to 95 per cent in some cases of
professional service procurement, while in other cases the figure is
58, 59 or 60 per cent-the Prime Minister tells us: ``We have a
procurement policy we must adhere to. Would we want to be
unfair? The Government of Canada is so honest, so frank, that we
call for tenders''. But, by a curious coincidence, purchases are
always made in the same place. By some strange coincidence, they
are rarely made in Montreal.
How can the Prime Minister of Canada explain a vision of
economic development based solely on equalization payments? For
him and his government, social assistance is the key to Montreal's
well-being. That is what the Prime Minister of Canada thinks.
Mr. Loubier: This is unbelievable. The jobs go to Ontario.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gauthier: Madam Speaker, we accuse the federal
government, its predecessor, and the one before that, of which the
Prime Minister was also a member, having been here since the
Auto Pact or just about. Federal governments have always made
decisions that penalize Montreal.
In the railway industry, federal decisions have cost Montreal
15,000 jobs in the past 15 years. Air traffic has been transferred
and, as passengers are now arriving in Toronto instead of Montreal,
our airports are in trouble. Government decisions which favour
Canadian International over Air Canada will also create problems
because Air Canada jobs are located in Montreal, while Canadian's
jobs are elsewhere. Indeed, the federal government keeps favouring
Canadian over Air Canada.
As for shipping, they are taking decisions which could prove
very harmful to St. Lawrence harbours. The Centre for Information
Technology Innovation in Laval has lost 80 jobs. The St. Hubert
Command Centre is down by at least 480 jobs. The federal
government's decision to save $7.5 million means there will be no
more research and development in the Montreal area at the
Tokamak installation in Varennes. Helped along by the federal
government, Atomic Energy of Canada is heading toward Toronto
and could take with it some high technology companies in the
sector. The creation of a Canada-wide securities commission,
which will transfer the nerve centre from Montreal to Toronto, will
shift even more activities to Toronto.
But what decisions is the federal government taking that favour
Montreal, other than those concerning equalization payments? Last
week the Prime Minister was happy to announce for the first time a
good decision for Montreal. He was happy, and rightly so, because
otherwise he would have had nothing to report. He says he is
concerned about the problems of Montreal, about the city's poverty
and economic difficulties, but he does nothing.
This is why we chose today to speak about what the government
should do, but will not do.
(1025)
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I first
want to thank members of the official opposition for giving the
government an opportunity to state its position on the greater
Montreal area and to say how it envisions its economic recovery.
Later on, I will have an opportunity to mention the initiatives we
have taken in a speech. But I want to reply to the speech delivered
by the leader of the official opposition, in which he mentions what
concrete measures he would like the government to take. I have the
distinct feeling that the leader of the official opposition does not go
to Montreal very often if he cannot think of concrete measures
taken by the government, because we regularly take action and
implement integrated projects that benefit the Montreal region
from a national and an international perspective.
In the case of government contracts, the fact is that, in its
advertising, the federal government makes sure the private sector
has a clear understanding of these contracts which, incidentally,
total over one billion dollars in Canada.
As for equalization, why are members of the official opposition
against the idea? Because equalization is a basic principle of our
political system, of Canadian federalism, and it enables us-and
this is something we are proud of-to distribute, in an equitable
way, our overall wealth across the country.
What really saddens me is that, once again, members of the
official opposition are incapable of rising above purely partisan
views. I will not ask the opposition leader to name five projects that
were recently announced by the Canadian government in the
Montreal region, because he simply would not be able to do so. But
I will ask him if he and his head office in Quebec can, in the interest
of Montrealers, make constructive proposals based on a vision, in
the context of the strategy unveiled this week by the Prime Minister
of Canada before the chamber of commerce, something I will come
back to later on, in my speech.
Mr. Gauthier: Madam Speaker, you will understand that I can
hardly keep a straight face when I hear a Liberal like the hon.
member opposite telling me that we are not able to rise over
partisan politics. In this House, we know all about the
government's eagerness to promote its red book, to use government
services to promote its funding drives, to appoint its friends
everywhere, and the member has the gall to talk about partisanship.
5648
Yes, we are partisans, partisan of development. We are in favour of
real development for the Montreal area.
The hon. member is asking for suggestions; I made some and I
will make more. The government should have the courage to fairly
allocate research and development funding in Canada and to take
initiatives for the development of the Montreal area. I think that
instead of buying flags for $20 million, the government should
invest $7.5 million in the Tokamak project in Varennes, that way it
would effectively support the economic development of the
Montreal area.
(1030)
I am in the process of providing an answer.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member's speaking time is up. Is there unanimous consent to give
the hon. member more time?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member does not have unanimous consent.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Madam
Speaker, it is quite revealing that the secretary of state for regional
development in Quebec should thank the opposition for giving him
the opportunity to talk about Montreal. Just imagine. He needs to
be given that opportunity by the opposition because the
government does not give it to him. That is quite something.
Today, my colleagues will be talking about a whole series of
actions, or non actions, rather, of the federal government affecting
Montreal. But first of all, I think it is worthwhile to set some
objective criteria to better understand the situation in Montreal.
A very interesting study has been made of 15 big cities in the
world, including three Canadian cities, Toronto, Vancouver, and
Montreal. Various indicators can be used to better assess the
situation in Montreal. On that basis, we will see who is responsible
for what, and what the federal government is doing or not doing in
Montreal.
If we look at labour cost indicators, we see that Montreal ranks
third, behind London and Stockholm, for directors general; second,
behind London, for secretaries and professional engineers; third,
behind London, Stockholm and Vancouver, for system analysts;
third, behind Atlanta and London, for laboratory technicians, and
fourth, behind Toronto, Atlanta and Los Angeles for electronic
assemblers.
We compare very well, contrary to what some would have us
believe, such as the militant community paper of the West Island,
The Gazette, which paints quite another picture of Montreal for its
North American and worldwide readership.
On the business tax indicator, Montreal ranks second, behind
Stockholm. On the R and D cost indicator, Montreal is the very first
city in the world. On the telecommunications cost indicator, it
ranks second, with Toronto, behind London. Montreal has the
cheapest first class office space in the world.
On the industrial land cost indicator, Montreal ranks second
behind Atlanta. It stands in third position, behind Toronto and
Atlanta, on the industrial construction cost indicator. Montreal
holds to the third sport, behind Vancouver and Stockholm, on the
hydro cost indicator, despite our harsh winter. For natural gas,
Montreal ranks fifth in a group of 15 cities, which is not bad.
In terms of the quality of life index, Montreal is third with an
index of 1000, behind Toronto and Vancouver, which are about at
the same level with indexes of 1002 and 1003 respectively. In terms
of public security, Montreal is sixth out of 15 cities. The cost of
living index has Montreal in second place right behind Vancouver,
with only a point difference. Montreal ranks first for its cost of
housing index.
So, these are very encouraging statistics, and yet Montreal faces
some serious problems. There are those who would say this is due
to political uncertainty. That is the expression they are using these
days. In answer to which we argue that there is one certainty, which
is that the members opposite are doing absolutely nothing. And we
can prove it.
When they talk about political uncertainty, I can still hear the big
names supporting federalism, such as Laurent Beaudoin of
Bombardier, for instance, who said during the 1992 debate: ``You
know, political uncertainty is preventing people from investing in
Montreal and that is terrible.'' The same week, he announced the
biggest investment Bombardier ever made outside the country. It
bought Short Corporation in a city known for its incredible
stability, Belfast. Belfast is a very stable city.
(1035)
When the Prime Minister travels with Team Canada, he goes to
visit Russia, another very stable country, Russia is. We see it all the
time, the mafia is practically running the whole country over there.
The rouble is not worth much. They are out of money. Yes, indeed,
a very stable country.
Now we have free trade with Mexico, and is Mexico more stable
than the province of Quebec? Do we have something like Chiapas
in Quebec? Is the former premier of Quebec in hiding somewhere
in the world, because he is accused of fraud and suspected of
murder? Come on! Get serious. We are all in favour of trade with
our Mexican friends, but do not compare the stability in Quebec
with the situation in Mexico. That is pushing it! You might be
Liberals, but I hope you can still reason a little bit better than this.
5649
Still on the issue of stability, we are now negotiating a free trade
agreement with Israel. That country is on the news every night. Can
you compare the political stability in Jerusalem with that of
Montreal? Of course not.
They like to use the expression ``political uncertainty'' and when
they do I can see them smiling, because they are glad to see what is
happening in Quebec. They say one thing when they are in
Montreal and something else when they are in Ottawa. That is what
the Prime Minister likes to do. We all know that.
Now we are going to talk about the real things, the real figures,
and I guess my hon. colleague, the Secretary of State for the
Federal Office of Regional Development, does believe in the work
of Statistics Canada. I guess it is a reliable federal institution,
graded A+. We will see about that.
Expenditures on goods and services: federal structuring
expenditures in Quebec in 1994, 19.7 per cent; grants and subsidies
to businesses, 20.5 per cent; capital financing, 18.3 per cent; total
structuring expenditures in Quebec, 19.7 per cent; Quebec
population, 24.9 per cent. We seem to be short of 5 per cent here.
And yet this is published by Statistics Canada and not by the Bloc
Quebecois.
Federal investments in Quebec: 1993, 18.5 per cent; 1994, 15.7
per cent; 1995, 15.3 per cent; 1996, 13.2 per cent. These are the
figures. These are the facts. Everything else is only rhetoric and lip
service on the part of all of the prime ministers, from Trudeau to
this one. And I see that the one who is getting ready to take over is
sending the same signals, is thinking along the same lines, is
backing us into the same corner.
That party, as paleontologists would say, is an exemple of an
evolutionary dead end.
To conclude, I move, seconded by my colleague from
Laval-Centre:
That the motion be amended by adding immediately after the word ``recognize''
the following:
``the area of''.
(1040)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I declare the
amendment in order.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Madam Speaker, again
I thank the official opposition for giving me the opportunity to talk
about our vision for Montreal. As my colleague from
Laurier-Sainte-Marie said, if the government did not talk about
the metropolitan area, why then is the opposition making it the
subject of this allotted day.
The Canadian government takes this opportunity to tell the
people that it has been and will continue to be present in the
metropolitan area. The whole of Team Canada is present in the
metropolitan area. Frankly, I must say that I now understand why
members of the official opposition, when I ask them to propose
concrete and constructive ideas for the strategy we set forward as a
government, are unable to make any real suggestion.
The answer comes from my colleague from
Laurier-Sainte-Marie. The members opposite are still stuck on
statistics, they are still at the drawing table, while we on the
government side have been acting for a very long time. We have
been working hard so that the metropolitan area can take its place
in the province of Quebec and continue to play a major role within
Canada, and that Montreal can continue to be the international city
all Canadians are so proud of.
This being said, I would like to ask the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie if he can propose any real solution, today,
in terms of our strategy for Montreal. I know that they know
nothing about this strategy and, naturally, they are a little bit more
eloquent about it. But could the member at least try to tell us that
his party is now past the stage of studies and statistics and has gone
as far as the government, which has been acting for a very long
time. Do you have any concrete solutions?
Mr. Duceppe: Madam Speaker, it is amazing that a secretary of
state who wants to become a minister tells us that he does not want
to hear about statistics. He should follow the basic political training
from the Minister of Finance. He talks about it all day long. I think
he knows his subject better than the person responsible for regional
development in Quebec. While we do not agree with what he does,
at least we understand what the minister says. That, however, is
another matter.
The secretary of state asks for suggestions. The leader of our
party just submitted some to him. Yesterday, we asked questions.
Sometimes, it is better to talk less and to listen more. You can make
another effort. Take a pencil and write down my suggestions; or,
better yet, I can make a copy of them for you. There are four of
them.
Regarding the financial sector, can the government make a
commitment not to establish a Canadian Securities Commission?
That is one suggestion. That is the first one. Here is the second one.
Regarding the development decisions dealing with energy, can the
government abandon the idea of transferring-I speak slowly
because it takes time to write these suggestions down-the offices
of Atomic Energy of Canada from Montreal to Toronto? And will it
also undertake to maintain the subsidies to Tokamak ,
T-O-K-A-M-A-K? That is for the second suggestion.
As for federal spending, will it guarantee with respect to regional
development, defence spending and capital spending that Quebec
5650
will benefit from more than 19.7 per cent of development
spending? That is the third suggestion. But the secretary of state is
not listening, that is why he does not understand.
(1045)
Mr. Bergeron: He did not write down anything.
Mr. Duceppe: And the fourth suggestion relates to tax equity:
will the government sign an agreement regarding the GST, as it did
with the Maritime Provinces?
Mr. Iftody: That is not true.
Mr. Duceppe: Ma-ri-ti-mes.
That is the fourth one. We made quite a number of suggestions
since yesterday. As the day goes by, the secretary of state will have
filled all the pages of his notebook. If, one day, he can start
listening and taking notes, he will then be able to act. Meanwhile,
he does nothing.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I can
understand that members of the official opposition have nothing
concrete to suggest for our Montreal strategy because I think they
have not quite yet understood the big picture with regard to the
Canadian government's intervention in the Montreal metropolitan
area.
I will take a few minutes to explain our intervention in a region
that is vital not only to Quebec but to Canada. When we look at
Greater Montreal, it is, in many respects, the economic force
behind the whole country.
I like to say this because I think it is true: Montreal is Canada
and Canada is Montreal. The metropolitan area is at the heart of our
history. Therefore, you will certainly understand that for the
Canadian government, which I represent, the development of the
metropolitan area is most important and, as such, is included in our
priorities.
The government's desire for dynamic intervention in the
metropolitan area must be understood and must be put in
perspective. It must be understood in the sense that a modern
country, a country that wants to have a dynamic economic structure
and that wants to be highly competitive, must ensure that its large
metropolitan areas are economically healthy.
Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto, Halifax, Montreal, these cities are
all vital to our country, and they all must be in excellent financial
health.
Canada is sensitive to the vitality of these cities. We have
developed an intervention strategy for the Montreal metropolitan
area, as we have done for other regions of Canada. As secretary of
State responsible for regional development, I can talk proudly
about this strategy. I think it is important for the people who are
listening to me today to understand what the Canadian government
means to the metropolitan area.
There are 32,500 federal employees in Greater Montreal. This
means that the federal government's second largest service centre
is in the metropolitan area. That is why this area so important to the
Canadian government, and that is also why we can say that the
federal government is a major partner in this area.
(1050)
The salaries paid to these federal employees represents $732
million a year. When we are speaking about development
programs, we speak about programs which cost $765 million a
year. When we speak about one hundred per cent research and
development programs, we are talking about interventions totalling
$485 million in 1993.
Therefore, as you can see, our involvement is structured and our
presence is enormous. We have chosen for the region of Montreal
an essentially horizontal intervention strategy, that is, one which
allows all the departments to act in a concerted way, to work, as
Team Canada, for the metropolitan region in order to maximize all
the different federal programs provided to Montrealers.
We did the same thing in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area.
We did the same thing recently with certain regional development
initiatives, such as the Gatig Fund in the
Quebec-Chaudière-Appalaches region. We did the same thing
when the time came to help the Lower St. Lawrence-Gaspé region
with the ground fish strategy, and we are doing the same thing for
other Canadian regions.
To get involved in the metropolitan area means to provide
structure and to act with vision. To do this, we have chosen focuses.
The Canadian government's intervention is focussed essentially on
its fields of jurisdiction, on elements which may lead to a
considerable and significant progress for the metropolitan area.
The focuses of intervention are as follows: the development of
science and technology; the development of the metropolitan area
for the international market; helping the small and medium size
businesses; the development of culture and tourism industries,
which are fundamental elements; and the social and economic
development at the local level of the different communities of
Montreal.
These are the structuring measures we are taking in the beautiful
Montreal region, and I think that it is important to underline the
fact that these measures come within the scope of the major
priorities of the government. In 1993, we received a mandate from
the Canadian people. We did what we were elected to do and the
strategy, of which I just enumerated the five elements, revolves
around the government's priorities.
5651
These priorities are, of course, job creation, economic growth,
helping businesses to adapt to the new economy and support for
Canadian youth.
That being said, I think that we all have a basic role to play with
regard to the structuring elements in greater Montreal. The
Canadian government gets involved and has its strategy for the
Montreal area, but I think that we must understand that the greater
Montreal area concerns the Canadian government, the Quebec
government, Montreal itself and all the surrounding towns and
cities, as well as the private sector.
In greater Montreal there is a whole spectrum of stakeholders
who have decided to work in partnership. Now, let me review our
interventions with concrete examples.
(1055)
In the area of science and technology, I made a speech yesterday
before the members of the space industry, not the aerospace sector,
but a very specific part of it, the space industry. The Canadian
government has been involved in the space industry for more than
20 years. We played a major role to help an industrial area
recognized not only here in Canada, but all over the world. So,
when we talk about the first element, science and technology, we
can say that the Canadian government has been a major partner in
aeronautics, biotechnology, pharmacology, telecommunications,
information technologies and multimedia.
In connection with the elements I have just mentioned, which
come under science and technology, a number of companies have
sprung up, thanks to the vision of the Canadian government, and
thanks also to the infrastructure in the Montreal area, to the quality
of the workforce, and to our vision, because we focused on science
and technology.
And as for the successes we are seeing today, with respect to
concrete projects, I must say that the government is rather proud to
be associated with these achievements, because these companies
are, in a way, one of the cornerstones of our Canadian society. I will
list them for you. There is Bell Helicopter, Ericsson, Biochem
Pharma, Merck Frosst, CAE Electronics, Spar, SR Telecom, Harris,
Farinon, Lallemand, the Institut Rosell, and I could go on. These
success stories are all because of the Canadian government's vision
and its strategy for action.
Again, just recently, it was with great pride that we entered into
partnership with Bombardier and Canadair in the aerospace field,
with the result that the 70 seat stretch CRX jet was finally
developed. This will allow us to create or maintain over 1,000 jobs
in the greater Montreal area. We are focusing on partnership, and I
think that one of the messages I want to get across today is that we
are doing so because it is together that we are going to be able to
rebuild and recreate the dynamic level of activity that Montreal has
a right to expect.
Other examples. In biotechnology, there is the Biotechnology
Research Institute of greater Montreal, founded in 1983, was the
impetus behind a good number of technology firms that are
international successes today. Think of Ibex Technologies, Bio
Signal, or Quantum Biotechnolgies. The institute has such a
reputation that we are now attracting international investments.
There is also the Dutch company Bio Intermediair.
This has all been made possible through the National Research
Council of Canada. And again, recently, proud of the assistance it
has provided, proud of its contribution to science and technology,
the Canadian government, through my colleague, the Minister of
Industry, has announced a $20 million expansion of the institute,
which will make room for 20 additional firms. This is what we
mean when we talk about structuring activities.
The second area is international development: 40 per cent of the
jobs created in 1995 are related to international development, the
conquest of new markets by our small businesses. Naturally, we
play a role by providing advice to these businesses, helping them to
fine-tune their export capabilities, but we also play an international
role with our added value, which is the pride of Quebecers, in the
form of our network of embassies and consulates in over 126
countries, with their trade advisors, who are there to assist our
small businesses.
(1100)
On the international scene, we seem to forget that the Canadian
government has been very dynamic in its promotion of Montreal as
the site for certain secretariats. Whether with the secretariat of the
North American Commission on Environmental Co-operation, the
secretariat of the United Nations Convention on Biological
Diversity, or the secretariat of the Convention to Control
Desertification, we have been doing our level best to help Montreal
consolidate itself as an international region. And what about the
Centre de conférences internationales de Montréal, which we
support not only through its operating budget, but also through
funding for international development.
Those are fundamental interventions, in some cases involving
partnerships with the Government of Quebec and the private sector.
We shall shortly be announcing Montréal international, another
developmental element, one which will enable Montreal to fully
assume its deserved role in terms of international endeavours.
The third concerns the development of small and medium
business. The right balance between small and big business must be
struck. In my opinion, announcements such as the one by
Bombardier and Canadair are full of promise for small business,
because they will lead to sub-contracts, which are good not just for
the
5652
metropolitan region but for all regions of Quebec, for
sub-contractors are located just about everywhere in Quebec.
The Government of Canada intervenes with small and medium
businesses, first of all to help them adapt to the new economic
context, but also to ensure that young entrepreneurs can get help
starting up and becoming competitive. We do so-and I feel this is
an important point-because the new government is one which
offers support and expertise, for instance via such programs as
Strategis for small business.
And then we could also mention the Centre d'entreprise et
d'innovation de Montréal, just another example of how we are,
always have been, and will continue to be, major partners in the
development of small business in Quebec.
The fourth bridge is development of the cultural and tourist
industries. Such elements as the Vieux Port, the parc des Îles and
the Pointe-à-Callière museum are all of importance to the
metropolitan region. Tourism, for instance, represents 40,000 jobs
in greater Montreal. We play our part in this sector through the
Canadian Tourism Commission or the OCTGM with which we
entered into a $2.5 million partnership.
In the case of local communities, we act with the greatest respect
for their realities and needs in terms of development, through
CDEC, for example. All those examples show that the Canadian
government has been and continues to be major partner.
If you will allow me a few more minutes, I referred, as part of
this intervention, to a horizontal strategy and I must emphasize the
collaboration of all the federal departments, which contributed
their share to metropolitan Montreal and are working in close
collaboration, be it Industry Canada, Heritage Canada, Transport
Canada, to name just a few.
When we refer to partnership, this means we also count on the
collaboration of all stakeholders. I know that there will be a
socio-economic summit at the end of this month in Quebec. In this
regard, I will quote what the Prime Minister said this week when he
spoke before the Montreal Chamber of Commerce. He said:
``Premier Bouchard will host an economic summit. It is very
important that tangible results come out of it for Montreal and the
rest of Quebec''. This is what the Canadian government is: a
partner with a vision, a partner that lends a hand and that is present.
(1105)
In short, we play our part, for instance the way we did in
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean. I wish to emphasize, in closing, as the
Prime Minister did so well this week, that there is something
important we have to do and it is to get rid of this sword of
Damocles, which we have over our heads at this time and has a
damaging effect on Montreal as well as on the rest of Quebec.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I want to thank the Secretary of State for his speech. He is
aware of my concern about the situation in Montreal. I am very
confident speaking about these issues since I am a Montrealer, born
and bred in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. I have always lived there
and cannot imagine living anywhere else. However, I cannot say I
share the optimism of the Secretary of State.
There is something we should all remember. I am sure the
Secretary of State is aware that a few days ago, the mayor of
Montreal, who is not a Bloc member and has no sovereignist
leanings, appeared before the committee on taxation. In his brief,
and I am sure the Secretary of State had occasion to read it, the
mayor reminded us of an undisputable fact, which led the
opposition to move the motion before the House on this opposition
day. He reminded us that as a result of the government's neglect,
and I would challenge anyone on the government benches to prove
otherwise, today Montreal is the poverty capital of Canada.
I may recall a quote from a report by a federal agency. In his
brief, the mayor of Montreal said: ``A recent report by the
Canadian-and I insist on the word Canadian-Council on Social
Development shows that in Montreal, the poverty rate is at 22 per
cent, the highest of any Canadian city. According to the report, in
Montreal one child out of five lives in poverty''. I am not the kind
of political demagogue who believes that poverty is the
individual's fault. That is not what we are discussing today.
Will the Secretary of State admit that a number of measures
deliberately introduced by his government have helped to make
Montreal a city where poverty is widespread? I am referring to the
unemployment insurance, now employment insurance reform. In
Quebec, both the Fortin report and the Bouchard report indicated
there was a connection between the reform and the fact that people
were going on welfare. Will the Secretary of State rise in the House
to tell us that the government admits that this kind of measure is
helping to pauperize Montreal?
Finally, I would like to quote from the red book, which has now
become the black book for Montreal, in which the government
made three promises. I would like to hear what the Secretary of
State has to say on the subject. It said that the government would
promote the use of community groups and partnerships to
revitalize local economies. Would the Secretary of State agree that
the proposed reform in which he was very much involved has
helped to pauperize Montreal?
The red book also referred to revitalizing the housing industry
through a renovation program that would be of particular benefit to
old neighbourhoods. That is all very well, but today, the federal
government is not putting a cent into subsidized housing. It has
withdrawn completely. Will the Secretary of State work actively in
5653
his caucus on obtaining compensation for Montreal? That is my
question, and I ask it as a friend.
Mr. Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to answer the question asked by my colleague for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. with whom I had the opportunity to
work this summer. I will come back to this.
(1110)
The mayor of Montreal was mentioned earlier. I must say that
the mayor of Montreal is exceptionally co-operative as far as the
intervention strategy is concerned. He is a man who does a great
deal for his region, who is committed and with whom we work very
well because he also understands that we can develop the
metropolitan area in partnership.
I listen to the members of the official opposition and, what I like
about the question of the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve is
that he has given me the opportunity to be more specific. When one
talks about the fifth intervention in the area of economic and social
development at the local and community level, my colleague
knows very well that the Canadian government is one of the major
partners in the metropolitan area in terms of respect of the
community development, of intervention, of partnership.
Think of the CDEC network, think of the pilot project conducted
jointly with the Minister of Finance. The Réseau Centre-Sud has
just been established in order to be able to adapt
development-after the disappearance of some big corporations in
about 20 years-to adapt development to regional realities. I say to
the Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, think of the Société de
développement Angus.
This summer, I received a call from my colleague who was
asking me to see what can be done in his region in terms of
revitalization or local development, but always in a perspective of
tourist or cultural economic development.
That is what the Government of Canada can and must do, and
that is what we did together. We visited his community together,
meeting with stakeholders. He knew very well that the Government
of Canada had not only the structure and the capacity, but also the
necessary concern about the various neighbourhoods of the
metropolitan area, because such is our role.
That is why I want to conclude by saying to the official
opposition that, in statistical terms, we are far past the stage of the
drawing board. It seems to me the the strategy of the members
opposite is to slow down government action which has proved
effective in the past in the greater Montreal region, and which will
remain effective, because we are eager to work for the benefit of
the everybody in the metropolitan region and in Quebec, as well as
in the rest of Canada.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, I want
to ask a question and make a comment. I hope the secretary of state
will pay close attention.
If he is to be believed, the federal government is doing
everything for Montreal. What a lot of rhetoric. He said we are way
beyond the drawing board or the planning stage, statistics are
irrelevant now.
I would like to ask the secretary of state a few questions. Given
the statistics we heard earlier, it is clear that every time Montreal
gives a dollar to Ottawa, Ottawa returns $0.75 to Montreal. That
means Montreal is receiving three quarters for each dollar it pays.
The secretary of state will have to admit that, according to
Statistics Canada, and its figures should be reliable, all those
accomplishments he just listed are nothing but a description of the
way those three quarters are spent. What about the fourth one? Is it
that generosity, that charity, called equalization? Montrealers do
not want charity; they want jobs.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. de Savoye: Thank you, dear colleagues.
So, essentially, the secretary of state is promising strategic
action, an action plan, is explaining the past, but is he ready to
commit yourself, before the House, his colleagues and the public,
to spend that fourth quarter in Montreal, so that next year Statistics
Canada will be able to say that 25 per cent of all Canadian
expenditures have been made in Quebec and that Montreal got its
full and fair share? Or will there be, one year from now, another
official opposition day when we will once again stand in this House
and say that Montreal is once again not getting its share? I await his
answer.
(1115)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The hon.
member has only 30 seconds to answer.
Mr. de Savoye: Then, is it yes or no?
Mr. Cauchon: Briefly, in 30 seconds, we are asked to promise to
get involved. We are not promising to get involved because we are
already actively involved in the metropolitan area and have been
for a long time.
I did not like the fact my colleague talked about spending money
in the metropolitan area. The Canadian government does not spend
money in the metropolitan area and throughout Canada, it invests.
This is the way we look at it.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
rise today to speak to the Bloc's motion on the current economic
situation in Montreal. This is one of those times when I feel I do not
belong, being part of a different family, but that I must still take
part in their debate. Anyhow, the motion reads:
5654
That this House recognize Montreal as the economic mainspring of Quebec society
and, therefore, condemn the federal government's lack of concrete initiatives in
supporting the Montreal area economy, primarily-
It then lists several particular areas in which the federal
government has failed.
I notice that we are dealing here with the Montreal area, where
the support for the Bloc is not as strong as in the rest of Quebec.
This may not be pure coincidence, but I believe that there is here
reason enough to blame both the federal government and the
sovereignist movement. If I may, I intend to move an amendment
later on reflecting my point of view and my party's to the effect that
both sides are to be blamed for their policy with regard to this
economic crisis.
[English]
What has happened to Montreal? When I was a young boy
growing up in Toronto, Montreal was a substantially larger city
than Toronto and was recognized in Toronto at the time as being the
economic centre of Canada.
Before I was a teenager all of that had changed and today in
Montreal, which I visit frequently, one can see on each visit the
gradual decline in the economic importance of that beautiful and
important city. One can see evidence of decline in its infrastructure,
the growth of unemployment and the decline of employment
opportunities. One can see evidence of the decline of business and
the shift of growth and economic activity and opportunity outside
of Montreal, particularly to Toronto, but also in some cases to other
parts of Canada.
No doubt today we will be treated with arguments which are
basically the following from the federalist side. I am a federalist.
However, we shall hear from the Liberal side that the separatist
movement is solely responsible for the decline in Montreal and for
the economic uncertainty it faces and that the sovereignty
movement has chased away any economic prosperity and activity.
I often point out to the people in western Canada that the
separatists will say: ``Look at what being part of the federation has
done to Montreal over the past 30 years''. I think there is a lot of
insincerity on both sides of the debate. The separatists never want
to use the word independence to describe their proposals for the
province of Quebec, economic independence and economic
separation from the rest of Canada, as the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs has noted. Also some of the federalists
in the province of Quebec today do not seem to want to say the
word province to describe their view of Quebec's position in
Canada. They want distinct society or whatever the latest buzzword
is to get the separatist vote.
Both, in blaming each other, are right. There is an old quote by a
political scientist which says that in a democratic system both
major parties-speaking here of the province of Quebec-spend
most of their time trying to prove that the other is incompetent and
unworthy of government. Both succeed and both are usually right.
That may apply in this case.
(1120)
I am not terribly interested in taking sides on this other than if
push came to shove I would certainly vote against this motion. We
certainly do not see anything in the separatist proposals, either
economic, constitutional or political, that would resolve any of the
difficulties. Clearly they have worsened it.
Let me digress on some of the difficulties that Montreal faces
and some of the reasons for its decline. I will make some reference
to a paper that has recently been written by Professor John Richards
of Simon Fraser University entitled ``Language matters: ensuring
that the sugar not dissolve in the coffee''.
Professor Richards was at one time a social democrat or
socialist. I think he still calls himself that but increasingly his
friends in the New Democratic Party do not. He has been labelled a
budding conservative, although that may be premature.
Professor Richards has asked me on numerous occasions to write
something about the situation in Quebec and I promised him that
and I have yet to deliver. I promised to review this paper he has
written for the C.D. Howe Institute.
His argument is worth examination, and that is what I am doing,
that the provinces generally, but Quebec specifically, should have
enhanced jurisdiction over language as part of a solution to the
national unity problem. That is perhaps in a different form part of
the Reform Party's own proposals.
He does make reference on page 3 of his paper to the following:
-the Quebecois want provincial legislation to promote French and, to some extent,
to limit the use of English.
Their Charte de la langue francaise (Charter of the French Language) most often
still called Bill 101 although it was enacted in 1977, has done the job. It has
strengthened the status of French as the working language in the province, preserved
Montreal as a predominantly francophone metropolis, and confirmed that French
remain the dominant language in the school system. Bill 101 has been controversial
but necessary.
That is mentioning something in the very narrow context of
language policy but I think more significant is what is not
mentioned here. It is quite arguable that the success of Bill 101, of
nationalist policies and nationalist language policies specifically,
has not really been to strengthen French in Montreal but in fact to
weaken English in Montreal, to be part of a massive exodus we
have seen of English language people and allophones outside of the
province of Quebec, taking with them much of the economic
activity they have generated, both capital and labour.
5655
The consequence has been a dilemma for all Quebecers, not just
for separatists, in the attempt to make Montreal an entirely French
city or to encourage Montreal as a French city as opposed to an
English city or a bilingual city. It has meant the decline of
Montreal as a national, international and particularly a continental
centre. This is the great dilemma.
Those who want to preserve, protect and strengthen the role of
Montreal as the francophone capital of Canada have no answer to
the problem of how they will stop the decline of Montreal as a
centre that has economic importance outside of the province of
Quebec. This is certainly a dilemma for the separatist movement
but is also a dilemma for nationalist movements that are nominally
on the federalist side. If I have time I will make some mention of
those later.
(1125)
This is a dilemma. It is at the heart of the decline of Montreal as
an economic centre.
[Translation]
This is not my own theory. I will give as an example an article
written by William Coffey and Mario Polèse for the publication
Recherches sociographiques. It is entitled ``The Decline of the
Montreal Empire. An Overview of the Economic Situation in a
Changing Metropolis''.
Here is an excerpt:
For the past three decades, the Montreal economy has taken a nosedive, resulting
in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. Cut off from its Canadian imperial
economic hinterland, Montreal is reduced to being merely Quebec's metropolis.
This article is more optimistic than many others, even though it
makes reference to the same problem I mentioned.
[English]
There is, however, no doubt that decline has happened, whatever
one believes the cause of the decline is. Let me also be very
specific about this by mentioning some facts which are reported in
various publications that one can read on a monthly basis.
Maclean's magazine indicates that during the 1980s the
population in the Montreal region grew by a modest 9.6 per cent.
Toronto expanded by 22.1 per cent. Vancouver grew by 25.2 per
cent. The number of jobs in Montreal between 1971 and 1991
increased 60 per cent, but well behind Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa,
Edmonton and Calgary, all of which saw jobs grow by more than
100 per cent in the same period.
Let us look at some recent economic statistics. Here I quote the
Toronto Star. The unemployment rate in Toronto in recent months
is 2 to 3 percentage points below Montreal. Frankly, that is a fairly
narrow gap compared to what we have seen in recent years.
Employment as a percentage of adult population was 5 per cent
lower in Montreal. The percentage of the population below the
poverty line in 1994 was 17 per cent in Toronto and 25 per cent in
Montreal, the economic engine of Quebec.
Housing starts were up 9 per cent in Toronto and down 9 per cent
in Montreal. Bankruptcies are double in Montreal what they were
in Toronto. Consumer bankruptcies are about 25 per cent higher.
There is slower growth in sales as the economy recovers.
These are all substantial and significant pieces of evidence of the
relative weakness of the Montreal economy. Nobody should deny
that, not the Liberals, not the separatists, not the federal
government and not the provincial government.
There are always explanations offered by separatists who try to
blame entirely the federalist side. Some of them are more far
fetched than others. One is mentioned in an article.
[Translation]
It is an article which describes the sovereignist perspective on
the economy of Quebec and Montreal. It says ``the incompetence
of Mr. Jean Chrétien is reason enough to worry investors'', writes
Mr. Roy in L'Action nationale. He also mentions several reasons in
the sovereignist perspective, including the role of the air
transportation sector and he compares Canadian Airlines and Air
Canada. In his article about what might worry investors, Mr. Roy
does not mention what we find time and time again in polls, that is
that sovereignty, the next referendum and the separatist movement
is what worries them.
[English]
He does mention the role of Air Canada versus Canadian
Airlines. I give this as one of the more far fetched examples. The
supposed favouritism of the federal government for Canadian
Airlines, which is based in Calgary and Vancouver to a lesser
extent, over Air Canada, which is based in Montreal and Toronto to
a lesser extent, is given as a reason.
(1130 )
First I should mention that very few people at Canadian Airlines
believe this and I know that for a fact. However, let us not forget
the facts here. Whatever separatists or others want to pick at as a
particular incident, the reality is that the existence of Air Canada as
a corporation based in Montreal is entirely the consequence of the
federal government having basically created and funded that
corporation for decades and then by legislation placed its head
office in the city of Montreal. There is no such parallel for
Canadian Airlines.
Furthermore, I just have to mention these uncomfortable facts.
For all the favouritism that supposedly generated, Air Canada is in
5656
fact making money. Canadian Airlines has not turned a profit since
1988 and as we know is constantly under financial pressure.
There are other facts and there are certainly failings of the
federal government and federalists. There is demonstrable and
researched uncertainty, it has been said over and over again by the
business community of Montreal, about the next referendum and
the sovereignty movement.
There is as well the particular problem of the language wars and
the language legislation. This summer the premier of Quebec, Mr.
Bouchard, was personally involved and responsible for heating that
up. We had some protests in Montreal about English language
customers in English language areas of Montreal demanding from
English language businesses service in English to be completely
acceptable under the laws of the province of Quebec. Yet Mr.
Bouchard jumped into the debate and with elements of the Parti
Quebecois threatened to once again raise the issue of further
language legislation and debate.
It is important to point out to people outside Quebec that this was
contrary to the wishes of virtually all Quebecers. This was not just
the anglophones but the vast majority of francophones, including
most francophones who actually supported the sovereignty side in
the referendum. This was once again the pet project of a particular
element of the separatist movement. The federal government is not
all to blame.
In this regard let me mention the tax burden in the province of
Quebec. A major reason that people often live in Ottawa as
opposed to the Outaouais is the tax burden at both levels of
government. Let me mention some facts on this which are not
arguable. These are not reasons for the economic performance of
Montreal.
The combined federal-provincial top marginal tax rate in Quebec
is 52.94 per cent which is the third highest in the country. Quebec
payroll taxes are 4.26 per cent, the highest in the country.
Non-financial corporation capital tax is 0.64 per cent, the highest in
the country. Gasoline taxes are the highest in the country. Interest
rates on provincial bonds demanded by the international
investment community are the highest in the country.
In the time that remains let me mention in all fairness to the
sovereignty movement some of the failures of the federalists and of
the federal government because these are important. On the
provincial level, let us not forget that the Liberal Party was
supposedly a federalist party that governed Quebec for part of the
period of this decline. It has often pushed the same kind of
damaging nationalist policies that we see from the Parti Quebecois.
It is the same type of financial mismanagement as we have seen
from the federal Liberals in Ottawa over the past generations.
Therefore that side is not blameless.
I might even point out that I have questioned many times even
giving that party the title of a federalist party. The Quebec Liberal
Party certainly wants Quebec to remain part of Canada but it also
supports the idea that there is a unilateral right to separate. This
would be six of one, and half a dozen of another.
Let us look specifically at the economic philosophy of the
federal government. This federal government in the classic style of
a centralist party that governs without vision and principle but only
on the basis of power and patronage brags about the kind of
largesse it can dispense to various Canadians. There is no shortage
of its bragging about the kind of largesse it has often dispensed in
the province of Quebec. This is well documented. I can point to
studies by Professor Mansell at the University of Calgary in which
I participated.
(1135)
It is interesting to note the nature of these things: subsidies,
unemployment insurance, equalization payments, social assistance
in all forms. It is never what the Reform Party or others have
proposed. It is never the idea that we should have a competitive
economy, that we should lighten the tax burden, that we should
make sure that economic opportunity is available to all Canadians,
that we should lighten the load of the federal government, bring
decentralization to the country. Unfortunately I am not going to
have time to elaborate on these things.
What is generally interesting is that the parts of the country that
have benefited from these Liberal programs, massive movements
of money across the country, are the have not provinces. The
question to really ask over time is, are they getting this money
because they are have not provinces, or are they have not provinces
because of these economic policies? Instead of exploiting their
natural advantages and the dynamism that is possible in the
resource base of those economies, they have been reduced to
economies that operate on subsidy through the various regional
development offices and through social assistance.
The Minister of Finance, a Quebecer, yesterday condemned the
Reform Party saying its policies would deny welfare to single
mothers. Perhaps its policies would offer a job to single mothers so
they would not need welfare. That always escapes the Liberal Party
in this kind of thinking.
In conclusion, I would like to move an amendment. I move:
That the amendment be amended by adding the following after the word ``the'',
``separatist threat is hampering the''.
The Speaker: My colleague, I will take this amendment under
advisement and I will render a decision on it in just a short while.
5657
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, to help in your
deliberations regarding the subamendment which was just
proposed, I would like to direct your attention to a similar motion
that is on today's Order Paper.
On page 11 of today's Order Paper there is an amendment to the
speech from the throne and it reads as follows:
[Translation]
That the following words be added to the Address:
``This House deplores that Your Excellency's advisers have demonstrated a lack
of vision in the face of the fundamental issues confronting Canada and Quebec, such
as job creation, better administration of public funds, the re-establishment of fiscal
justice for all, the recognition of Montreal as the economic hub of Quebec society,
the need to protect Quebec culture;
and show a lack of sensitivity toward the poor by proposing a reform of the social
programs that strikes at those who are unemployed or on welfare, as well as
seniors and students;
and show a total lack of understanding of the referendum results''.
(1140)
[English]
There is also a subamendment by the member for Okanagan
Centre. As listed on today's Order Paper, his subamendment reads:
That the amendment be amended by adding after the words ``Quebec Society''
the following:
``and, in particular, recognition that it is the separatist movement in Quebec that
threatens the economy of Montreal''.
I would refer to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 580.(1):
``The purpose of a subamendment-is to alter the amendment-.it
should deal with matters that are not covered by the amendment''.
And finally, citation 584.(2) states: ``A subamendment must be
relevant to the amendment it purports to amend''.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think that the
situation is fairly clear. A subamendment can only modify the
amendment, and not the main motion.
The proposed amendment, which was accepted this morning,
reads as follows: ``the region of''. We could of course amend this
amendment and, to this end, propose a subamendment. We could
say: ``the beautiful region of'', ``the great region of''. But it must
relate to the words, the ideas, the concept of the amendment. It
cannot deal with the whole motion, only the amendment. A
subamendment should seek to modify the amendment and not the
main motion. This seems clear to me and I urge you, once you have
read the amendment and reflected on it, to reject this initiative of
the Reform Party.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I always thought the Reform member was a serious and
informed man, and I am sorry to advise the House that I was
mistaken. I think he is, to say the least, unacquainted with Quebec's
situation, which the Reform Party has itself admitted to being, and
I can reassure him today by telling him that, with such a statement,
he can rest assured that his party will be considered to be many
generations away from Quebec.
The hon. member stood in this House, and showed a lack of
consideration that had not been seen for a long time, to tell us that
the cause of economic hardship in Montreal-we know that, as we
are speaking, Montreal is one of the capitals of poverty-is the
language situation, Bill 101 and, finally, that it is because a
majority of people want to speak their language that things are
going badly on the economic level.
You will understand that the hon. member is just repeating the
same old platitudes, the same obsolete approaches, which are not
serious at all and are based on absolutely no analysis. I think what
the hon. member must be reminded of is that there is a nation in
Quebec. There are people who speak French, who control a
territory, who have a history, who have a legal system, and that is
called a nation. You know very well that a nation is destined to
become sovereign.
Having said that, if the hon. member wants to look up the history
of this concept, I refer him to the recent regional commission and
to the bill that was introduced in the national assembly. I speak
about this with firsthand knowledge, because I was a member of
that commission, and I have excellent memories connected with of
it.
(1145)
It was recognized that there is in Quebec an English speaking
founding minority to which were conferred very specific rights
over the control of a number of institutions. I know the hon.
member is aware that it is possible to take courses in English from
childhood to university in Quebec. It is possible to be served in
English to obtain health services in Quebec. When it is rrequested
specifically, it is also possible to receive correspondence from
public authorities in English.
What the hon. member did not understand is that we are saying
that, collectively, we think a language is not insignificant. The
common language of a nation is not something to be treated lightly,
because it is a rallying code, an identity code. That is how we can
communicate with one another.
As sovereignists, we are for people speaking or understanding
many languages-English, Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese. It was
Montaigne who said that to learn a new language was to learn a
new way of thinking. As parliamentarians, I believe we all agree
with that.
That said, our point is that our situation is not the same in
Quebec as in Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan or other
provinces, since we have the specific mission of preserving this
5658
language of ours which is unique in North America. That is why the
legislator passed Bill 101 and, later, Bill 178.
I would like our hon. colleague to tell us whether he agrees that,
since we are a nation enthusiastically moving toward sovereignty,
the legislator acted responsibly in ensuring that French-speaking
citizens in these parts of America can continue to do so in the next
few years?
Mr. Harper: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member claims I blamed
Montreal's economic situation on Quebec's language situation.
This is not true. I said it was one of the problems in Quebec's
current economic situation.
I repeat what I said. There are people in Quebec-not only the
sovereignist movement, but also the Quebec Liberal Party-who
think Quebec and Montreal should be French. The price of this
policy is that Montreal's importance as an economic centre has
declined in the rest of Canada and North America where the
language is English. I am not saying that this policy is wrong or
mistaken, but that it is the price to be paid.
In my opinion, Montreal's strength as a city in Quebec, Canada
and North America is that it is the only city of its size on this
continent where Canada's both official languages are widely
spoken. This is Montreal's strength. If the provincial government
decides not to capitalize on this strength, it is one of the
consequences it must accept. It cannot have it both ways.
I should point out that, in this regard, sovereignty would make
the situation worse than it is today. My friend mentioned that
Quebec is a nation that should achieve sovereignty. I assume he is
right. But I also see that, in the two referendums held in Quebec,
the people made themselves heard and decided they were part of
the Quebec nation, of course, but also of the Canadian nation. As I
said several times, only through federalism can both sides of
Quebec's personality be expressed.
(1150)
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, you
realize that we will oppose the resolution, because it is way too
divisive. This resolution goes against any idea of partnership.
[English]
With respect to my colleague from the Reform Party, I would
like to mention, without going through all the details which he
mentioned in his speech, that I am pleased to see that the Reform
Party recognizes the economic problems that exist in the Montreal
area. Of course the idea of an upcoming referendum in the province
of Quebec does not help the Quebec economy. That was mentioned
by the Prime Minister at the beginning of the week.
I would like to remind my colleague from the Reform Party that
we voted here in the House, with respect to the province of Quebec,
on a resolution for a distinct society designation, which is
important. That not only means something for the province of
Quebec, it means something across Canada.
We recognize the economic problems of metropolitan Montreal.
The Canadian government is acting on those problems. Our action
is one of vision. We are getting involved in five areas, which I will
mention again: science and technology, international development,
SMEs, culture and tourism, social and local economic
development. We have been working hard with the province of
Quebec, and with metropolitan Montreal, in those five areas.
We are doing many things in the Montreal area, the Saguenay,
Lac-Saint-Jean and many other regions of Quebec. We have done
many things in cities across Canada: for example, Halifax,
Moncton and Winnipeg. We are also doing things in other regions
across Canada.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how to
respond to that. It sounded more like an extension of the member's
speech than a question put specifically to me.
Let me repeat that Reform members do not doubt for a minute
that the policies being pursued by the government in Quebec are
also being pursued by it in other parts of the country. What we
quarrel with is the appropriateness of those policies.
Our governments do not need to be involved in giving large sums
of money to major corporations, which also happen to contribute to
the Liberal Party, in order to spur economic development. What the
country really needs, for example, is a lighter tax burden. Take
away the subsidies and lessen taxes, both in Quebec and in other
regions of the country and the private economy could exploit the
advantages which our resources and the North American market
offer to us.
It should be mentioned that Quebec was a leader, not just the
federalists but also the separatists, in the free trade debate. They
supported the extension of free trade and the economic
opportunities that brings. Let us exploit the opportunities of a
market economy rather than trying to do it through big government
and corporate subsidies. That is one objection I have.
I also have to mention the reference to the distinct society
motion, which my party opposed and will continue to oppose. We
will continue to say that the solution to this problem is not for
so-called federalists in Quebec to walk around repeating separatist
claims that the French language is in some kind of jeopardy in the
province of Quebec, which it is not, and needs some kind of special
status to protect it. We have said repeatedly that there are things
which can be done to improve this federation, but putting separatist
slogans in the Constitution is not the way to proceed.
5659
[Translation]
Separatists themselves recognize that the true distinct societies
of this world sit at the United Nations. Quebec is a province of
Canada. It fulfils an important role and its name must not be
changed.
(1155)
[English]
The Speaker: Before returning to debate I have been asked to
rule on an amendment to the amendment. So that we are all dealing
from the same spot, the motion stated:
That this House recognize Montreal as the economic mainspring of Quebec
society and-
The amendment was:
That this House recognize the region of Montreal as the economic mainspring of
Quebec society and-
The amendment of course was acceptable.
By adding the words after that this House recognize ``the
separatist threat is hampering the region of Montreal as the
economic mainspring of Quebec society and-'' in my view
enlarges on the scope of the amendment and it should not.
The hon. member from the Reform Party was very kind to give
me his advice and I thank him for intervening. However, in my
view this would enlarge the scope of the amendment. Therefore, it
is not receivable.
We will continue the debate.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is with
anger that I will speak this morning to support my party's proposal.
I am angry because the speech delivered by the Prime Minister to
the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal is tainted
with a dose of cynicism that is hurtful.
When the Prime Minister stated, as quoted in this document, that
we have a duty to target, as a priority, the problems of a city, he
should have referred to a region with 675,000 poor, which is twice
as many as in all of Atlantic Canada, a region where one
unemployed Canadian in seven lives. When the Prime Minister
says we have a duty to target the problem as a priority, he should
remember what his government did to the poor, who are found in
very large numbers in Montreal, since he took office.
The fact is that his government did not target poverty, it targeted
the poor. The employment insurance reform follows another UI
reform. Together, these reforms will result in a shortfall of over
$900 million for Quebec, almost $1 billion. In 2001, according to
the government's own figures, the figure will reach $1.2 billion.
Forty per cent of this $1.2 billion, that is at least $500 million per
year, will be a huge shortfall in the fight against poverty in the
Montreal region.
In other words, the government decided to target the deficit by
making the poor pay, and since there is a large concentration of
poor people in Montreal, the city's contribution to reduce the
deficit is greater than that of a lot of others.
Have job creation projects been set up to make up for what is
taken away from the poor?
(1200)
We would have heard about them, because they made such a fuss
over an $87 million loan. The attention given to this $87 million
loan shows how little the government is doing in this city, in this
area, which has the misfortune to hold the Canadian record for
poverty.
I would like to add, for the benefit of my colleague in the Reform
Party who spoke earlier, that separatism is not the cause of all this.
I would like to remind him that in 1962-63, for example, there was
a commission in Quebec, the Boucher Commission, which looked
at poverty. It concluded that the leading cause of poverty was the
weakness of the Quebec economy at that time.
What has federalism done since then, before there arose this
nationalist movement of Quebecers, the majority of them raised in
these poor neighbourhoods where these victims of poverty wanted
to take control of their future? Anyone in Canada who fails to look
at this aspect of the fight against poverty by Quebec's nationalist
movement is missing the key to understanding a large part of the
movement.
I spoke about the cost of unemployment insurance, the Liberal
cuts, the Liberals' gift to Montreal. This year, the cost is $400
million and by the turn of the century, 1999, it will be $500 million.
The Prime Minister cannot stand up and say, even with a smile
on his face: ``We have a duty to give priority to the problem of a
city where there are 675,000 people living in poverty''. But that is
not all.
If only the cuts were limited to unemployment insurance. But
there were also large cuts in social transfer payments. These
transfer payments were reduced by $7 billion over a period of two
years, which leaves about $1.9 billion for the entire province of
Quebec. Again, this means 40 per cent for the Montreal region, or
more than $400 million.
This shortfall affects health care, education and social
assistance. But the worst part is, and we cannot repeat this often
enough,
5660
this Canada social transfer includes a dimension that should be
criticized loud and clear. This Canada that is so anxious to meet the
needs of its population, this Canada is changing by reducing
equalization. That is what is happening. And it will become
increasingly obvious, because without the resources that belong to
the Canadian state, the city of Montreal, the municipality and the
region will have tremendous problems, even with the support of the
Quebec government. That is why we want to have all our resources
to deal with this situation.
I repeat, the Canada social transfer is bringing about
fundamental changes. Unfortunately, every recession sees an
increasing number of people who must rely on social assistance to
survive. This social assistance was 50 per cent funded by the
Canada assistance plan.
With the Canada social transfer that is no longer the case. When
the conditions are renegotiated, something that is still pending
because of pressure from other provinces, especially Ontario which
also has a comparatively high poverty rate, and we understand
those pressures, what will happen? The government will want to
relegate Quebec to a role based on its population. Here again,
Quebec will be alone in bearing the additional load of new welfare
recipients who will arrive in a steady stream, since we know there
will be another recession, especially with the economic measures
to reduce the deficit, because these cuts are the result of offloading
the deficit on the provinces, on Quebec and Montreal.
(1205)
It is outrageous. I repeat, because of these changes, the deficit
will be fought at the expense of the poorest in our society. What
happens to the surplus in the unemployment insurance fund? What
happens to this adjustment? People are talking about tax cuts for
everyone, including the rich.
That makes no sense at all. People in Quebec were already
talking about what the federal government did not do, but they said
that at least they had more unemployment insurance and social
assistance. From now on, even that will no longer be true. For
many people, sovereignty was not the only option. But
increasingly, that is changing, and it is high time it did.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when I
listen to my colleague for Mercier, I note her rather amazing talent
for painting a sombre picture of what the government has done,
whereas these have been actions with concrete effects, extremely
beneficial effects, for all of the people of Quebec and of Canada,
and this is something my colleague for Mercier knows full well.
When they refer to employment insurance they refer to cuts, but
I want to speak to you of basic reforms, reforms called for by
everyone in this country, as well as a good many international
organizations.
Employment insurance reform means that today people needing
jobs can use this new program to gain access to tools, to means of
acquiring additional skills for getting back into the work force.
This is one of the elements, one of the goals of employment
insurance reform.
With the change from a system based on weeks worked to one
based on hours worked, employment insurance reform will provide
coverage to thousands of men and women who work part time.
They will be able to draw benefits, which they cannot at present.
Before, as my colleague has said, the existing system was based on
areas. It is true that, over the past 20 years, certain companies have
closed down. The economy of the metropolitan region is changing,
as it is everywhere in Canada, as well as in a good number of G-7
countries.
We have answered the call, we were present and accounted for
when needed. We worked with the CDECs in the metropolitan
region, those grassroots bodies which work together in
collaboration. Think of RESO and the Corporation de
développement Angus already referred to. These are approaches
we will be continuing to use. They already have the means, means
that could do with some fine tuning, and I would just ask them to
focus their efforts on that.
Just think about the education issue, the tax agreements with the
metropolitan region-two fundamental elements which come
under their jurisdiction and where they have plenty to keep them
busy.
Mrs. Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned a $400 million a year
reduction of benefits in one region. He counters with the
employment insurance, saying that it will provide $200 million
more a year throughout Canada, because of pre-existing active
programming. The only difference between the employment
insurance and the old active programming is that, from now on, the
money will no longer come from the consolidated revenue fund,
but from the unemployment insurance fund. Active programming
did exist before.
He then goes on saying that the federal government is involved
in CDECs. An so it should. Despite this $400 million cut, despite
the shortfalls in federal spending in Quebec, when Ontario was
awarded a contract to build tanks, all the east end of Montreal got
was a contract to repair old tanks.
(1210)
The ones who have to watch what they are saying are people
speaking on behalf of the Canadian government. They cannot just
ramble on. People who live in poverty want to get out of it. The
hon. member may not know what poverty means. I bet that some of
his constituents who would like to work could tell him all about it. I
am not saying that some may not want to, there may even be some
among members. However, there are lots of people who want to
work but cannot because there are no jobs.
5661
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, could you please let me know when there will be only
one minute left, because I am announcing right now that we will
be moving an amendment.
I am really convinced that the official opposition is taking on its
responsibilities and is doing its job by apprising the House of the
seriousness of the financial situation, and therefore the social
situation, in Montreal; it is sounding an alarm that this government
must hear.
I want to talk about one characteristic in particular and that is the
defense economy. Before that, however, let me remind you that
people from outside this House, people who are not sovereignists
and who were not elected under the Bloc Quebecois banner, are
joining their voices to that of the official opposition today to
express their concern over the situation in Montreal.
Let me remind you that, a few days ago, the mayor of Montreal,
who is after all the official spokesperson for his city, tabled a brief
with the commission on taxation. In this brief, he presented several
facts that government members should try to understand. If
Standing Orders allowed me to be more specific I would do so, but
I will resist temptation because, as you all know, I abide by the
rules.
The mayor quoted a recent Canadian Council on Social
Development report stating that 22 per cent of all Montrealers are
classified as poor and that, in Montreal, one child out of five does
not get enough to eat. Furthermore, there is a problem with the
rental housing stock because 60 per cent of all housing units were
built before the sixties and now, it must be said that all the taxes
Quebecers send to Ottawa are no longer applied to the maintenance
and construction of social housing.
Someone reminded us that employment growth is very slow in
Montreal; Montreal is losing jobs, particulary in the manufacturing
sector. Who among us, whether a member of government or of the
opposition, could rise in the House today and speak seriously? I am
not thinking about the few amusing comments that we heard earlier
because you will admit that this is not the kind of talk we should be
hearing. Who could rise and say that the federal government really
took some significant measures in order to solve the critical
situation prevailing in Montreal? It is so true.
This debate today is not a device to garner popularity. We all
stand to benefit from Montreal doing well. Montreal is my passion,
my life, my city even since I was born. I have lived in Montreal all
my life, always in the same neighbourhood. I will not go as far as to
say that I lived in the same house all that time, I did not. But if there
is someone in this House who is familiar with the back streets of
Montreal, the sheds, the Olympic Stadium and the subway, it is
yours truly.
I know Montreal like the back of my hand. And today, I am not
too pleased to see that Montreal has become a city of poverty, a city
on the decline. We must recognize that, beyond the changing
international circumstances the secretary of state keeps referring
to, there were deliberate choices made that have undermined the
economic vitality of Montreal.
(1215)
Let me give a specific example. This way, the secretary of state
will not complain later that I talked in generalities. He knows that I
do my homework; rigour is a quality of mine he appreciates. I am
telling him that what hurt Montreal was a decision made by a
minister from Ontario, who deliberately chose to weaken the
defence component of the Montreal economy.
The secretary of state spoke earlier and he was right. I agree with
one thing he said. Two in fact. The first one was when he said that I
am a good MP and that I had invited him to come and visit my
riding. I thank him for his support to the SIDAC Ontario
merchants. L'économie de la défense? I have always thought that
economic problems were non-partisan issues.
The second thing he said that I agree with is that there is in
Montreal a strong area that makes us proud, the aerospace industry,
and that Montreal is the only region in Canada where airplanes and
helicopters can be built from nose to tail so to speak, without
having any part of the aircraft shipped in from outside. That was
what we called the defence component of the economy, on which
nearly 30,000 jobs were dependent in Montreal.
This was one program we were benefiting from equitably. We
rose time and time again in this House to complain about being
treated unfairly. There was only one program in the history of the
federal government where Quebec ever got its fair share and it was
DIPP. This is not a venerial desease, it stands for Defence Industry
Productivity Program.
Fifty six per cent of the aerospace industry is concentrated in
Quebec and in Montreal in particular. Quebec would usually
receive about 50 per cent of program funds. We must keep in mind
that, in good years, this program had a $300 million budget, of
which Quebec would receive 50 or 51 per cent. Why? Because the
flagship aerospace industry was based in Montreal.
What did the Minister of Industry, who comes from Ontario, do
when he realized this could benefit Montreal? He abolished the
program to all intents and purposes. This year, DIPP has a $22
million budget and, in 1998, it will cease to exist. Is this the kind of
decisions the Secretary of State is proud of when he comes to
Montreal to talk about federal support for that region?
Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the defence
industry will need help in the next few years? We need help. I want
to be clear. I am asking the Secretary of State in a friendly,
non-partisan way-because we are both from Montreal-to put in
place a fund to help defence industries convert to civilian
applications.
5662
What you do not know and I will tell you is that, if nothing
is done within two years, 10,000 jobs will be lost in the defence
industry in the greater Montreal area. DIPP could have been a way
for the government to take concrete action and support industries
that need help in converting to other uses.
I am not shy. I went to see public officials. I went to that bastion
of intellectual reflection that is Industry Canada, and I wish you
had been with me. I asked industry officials to tell me what they
thought of DIPP. They told me it was a great program.
I have here documents I will not use. But I saw documents I
could table anytime if the Secretary of State asked me to.
According to these documents, every dollar spent on DIPP
generates the following economic benefits: $25 in sales, $18 in
exports, $4 in research and development. Industrial performance
shows that the industry was successful in converting to more
desirable applications. This allowed the industry to grow and be
ranked sixth in the world. The aeronautical industry is recording
trade surpluses.
If nothing is done in Montreal, where the defence industry is
concentrated, 10,000 jobs will be lost. If the Secretary of State is
serious, he will take action. The conversion of the defence industry
to civilian uses is important.
(1220)
We need market studies, we need help in finding niches, new
products upstream or downstream of what we already produce. I
hope I have been convincing in my serenity and that the Secretary
of State will not turn a deaf ear.
I move:
That the amendment be amended by adding immediately after the word ``of'' the
following:
``the Greater''.
The Speaker: The amendment to the amendment is in order.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as regards
defence industry conversion, the Canadian government took action
a long time ago. The hon. member referred to the famous DIPP.
This program is now called TPC, or Technology Partnerships
Canada, and it also relates to the issues raised by the hon. member
for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. It gives very concrete results, as
was hoped, and these results benefit the whole community.
This dynamic and concrete initiative is part of Industry Canada's
program, and we co-operate together. As you know, regional
development officers are on Industry Canada's team, and we all
work together regarding the point raised by the hon. member.
As for defence industries, here are some examples of contracts
awarded between April 1996 and now: ammunition purchase from
SNC, $140 million; automated systems for low altitude air defence
from Oerlikon, $62 million; DND uniforms from Logistik and
Newcourt, $42 million; Spar Aerospace, $39 million for space
program trinkets for Canadarm and RADARSAT; DND aircraft
repair and overhaul by Allied Signal Aerospace, $22 million;
Godfrey Aerospace, $16 million-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, I thank Myriam Goodwin for having
sent to the Secretary of State what he had to say about Industry
Canada. The real issue is that there is currently no support fund for
industry conversion.
I challenge the Secretary of State to tell us today that Technology
Partnerships Canada has actual funds available for feasibility
studies, so that we can truly change production technologies. The
fact is there is no such fund.
In spite of the commitment made during the election campaign
by the Prime Minister's team to allocate specific funds for
conversion, this has not been done. Let me remind you that, if
nothing is done, 10,000 jobs will be lost. We cannot remain
impassive to this situation.
[English]
The Speaker: We will return to the debate. I will now recognize
the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. My colleague,
before you begin, it is my understanding that you will be splitting
your time with the hon. member for Winnipeg. You will have 10
minutes and 5 minutes.
(1225 )
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg
St. James
I am pleased to have an opportunity to talk on this opposition
motion offered by the Bloc in respect of Montreal. I have no doubt
that its suggestion that the economic situation in Montreal is
critical is a reality. However, I firmly believe and I know most
Canadians, most economists and most people who know how
economies work believe that the analysis that the Bloc has put forth
in its opposition motion is at best flawed.
The situation in Montreal today is caused in large part because of
the political uncertainty that exists in that province and in that city.
If Bloc Quebecois members want to know why Montreal is
5663
suffering economically today, I suggest they and their PQ cousins
look themselves clearly in the mirror and they shall see the enemy.
For the economy in Montreal, in Quebec and indeed for the
Canadian economy in general to prosper and move forward we
need political stability. That means that this experiment, this
flawed idea of sovereignty must be put aside. For Montreal to
prosper as a community, for it to serve as the engine of the Quebec
economy, political stability has to be brought to that province. The
constant and continual constitutional debates must come to an end.
The Quebec government must, as this government does, focus its
energy on the economy, on job creation and on seeing the economy
move forward. If it wants to identify a problem that is where it
should be looking.
As part of the specific comments that were made in that motion,
I am going to take the opportunity to talk a little about Natural
Resources Canada and its R and D investment. I have the
opportunity of serving as the chair of that committee. I know
Natural Resources Canada is going to continue to fund energy
research and development activities, those that are expected to
generate benefits in the short and medium term. We are also not
going to abandon the long term activities. We are placing a priority
on research and development activities that will address critical
long term issues like climate change and will be doing that sooner
rather than later.
The natural resources portfolio of this government is doing a
great deal of work. It is setting research and development as a
priority. We see things across Canada. We see things like the oil
sands where we are working to have sustainable development of
the Alberta oil sands. We are looking at the area of energy
efficiency where we are working to create alternative sources of
energy which create no pollution. These are the priorities of
Natural Resources Canada and they demonstrate that we are in fact
investing in research and development in this country.
There is a great and lengthy story that I could espouse about in
Natural Resources Canada's development activities, but I want to
be more specific about the motion before us today. I want to point
out very clearly that the investments that Natural Resources
Canada is making are not just in western Canada, eastern Canada or
Ontario; they are right across the country. No one would know it
from reading this motion, but these investments are happening in
the province of Quebec as well.
Natural Resources Canada is working on the advanced houses
program, including two in Quebec, and is just completing its one
year public demonstration period. These houses deal with the
whole issue of air quality requirements. These are houses in which
we are dealing with the whole issue of air quality requirements. We
are looking at an advanced housing program that will see better and
more efficient homes built in this country. This project is
happening across Canada. It is happening in Quebec.
(1230)
The expertise assembled at the Natural Resources Canada energy
diversification research laboratory at Varennes, Quebec, was
instrumental in the European space agency's award to EDRL of a
$100,000 contract to evaluate the potential of advanced heat
pumping technologies in space applications. That is happening in
the province of Quebec.
Natural Resources Canada with Environmental Canada and the
Government of Quebec funded a field trial of the combustion of old
tires in a cement container at the St. Constant, Quebec, cement
plant of Lafarge Canada. Again, that is new technology which is
working to protect our environment. It is investment in research
and development by Natural Resources Canada and it is happening
in the province of Quebec.
Natural Resources Canada is working with the École
Polytechnique at the University of Montreal and Canadian gas
utilities to develop an energy efficient process which uses natural
gas to reduce organic contamination in industrial waste water. That
is important research and development that continues to occur in
this country and it is occurring in the province of Quebec.
At Laval University's hydro-turbine test laboratory, Natural
Resources Canada supported the development of a 120 kilowatt
tubular S-turbine which has now been licensed for international
manufacturing and marketing. Again, that is sound research
development into future energy needs and it is taking place in the
province of Quebec.
The suggestion that the Bloc is trying to make, that we are taking
one part of the country and playing it off against another part of the
country, is totally absurd. That is not what the government is doing.
It is what the party on the other side of the House is trying to do. It
is trying to play one part of Canada against the other. It is trying to
play one part of Quebec against another part of Quebec.
It is clear on the research and development aspect that the
government has not favoured one part of the country over another.
The Minister of Natural Resources has had to make some tough
decisions in this fiscal climate. She has had to govern. The Minister
of Natural Resources has had to make those hard choices which any
government is required to make. She has made them understanding
what sound fiscal management is all about. She has made them
understanding what leadership is all about. She understands that
governing is for all of Canada. She understands that she must make
decisions which are in the best interests of all Canadians.
The ministers that make up the government, and the Prime
Minister in particular, understand their obligation to the whole
country. That obligation is not just to Ontario, the prairies or the
maritimes, and it is not just to Quebec, it is to the whole country.
The province of Quebec, as all other provinces in Canada, has
the opportunity within this great nation to move forward. The
5664
province of Quebec has, the province of Ontario has, the east and
the west in Canada have as well.
As an individual who represents a riding in rural Ontario, I can
say that I resent the insinuation in the motion that the government
is ignoring its obligation in one part of the country. That simply is
not true. The government recognizes its obligation to all parts of
the country, including the province of Quebec. It has exercised that
obligation in a sound manner. It has exercised its obligation
showing leadership, making tough decisions when they have been
required, but always remembering that we are one nation from
coast to coast to coast. We govern that way and we govern that way
effectively.
(1235)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the speech made by my hon. colleague opposite. If we
believe what he said, things could not be any better. So, why have
not only his government but the previous federal government and
all the governments during the last 30 years allowed the economic
situation in Montreal to deteriorate? It did not happen overnight, it
occurred over a certain period of time.
We only have to think about the Borden line which closed down
three refineries in eastern Montreal. About Mirabel airport that
reduced traffic in Dorval without increasing its own, which
explains why air traffic shifted to Toronto.
Earlier, I heard the hon. member put the blame on the political
instability and so on. In 1966, it was a federalist and not a separatist
government that was in office in Quebec, as far as I know. And in
1976, Mr. Bourassa ran into trouble with the Borden line, which led
to the closure of three refineries.
In 1984, Mr. Bourassa was re-elected and remained in office
until 1994. Of course, we had Mr. Johnson the last few months but
all these Quebec leaders supported federalism. Meanwhile,
Montreal was getting poorer and poorer. To argue that the
sovereignty issue or political instability was at the origin of
Montreal's problems is totally wrong.
In fact, let us examine these things clearly. Canada has a free
trade agreement with Israel. As far as I know, people are not
throwing rocks or firing machine guns off in the streets of
Montreal, but such things do happen every day in Jerusalem. So,
please, do not bring up the issue of political instability.
We are talking about helping Montreal with some investment.
We know that the government opposite donated $11 million to
Vietnam. Vietnam is a fine country, I agree, but let us not forget
that Montreal is the poorest city in our country. Montreal needs $7
million for the Tokamak project to go on. Can the hon. member tell
me why his government seems to prefer Vietnam to Montreal?
[English]
Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, in his question and comments the
hon. member requires that I repeat a couple of the things I said in
my speech. If he wants to stand in this House and say through the
television cameras to the people of Quebec and to the people of
Montreal that the political climate and the political instability
brought to that province through of the pursuit of the sovereignty
option has absolutely no impact on the economy of Quebec, then he
can say that. There is not an economist, not a reasonable person in
Quebec or anywhere else in Canada or the world that believes that.
If the hon. member is going to suggest to me that the political
climate in Quebec is conducive to economic activity, he is just
plain wrong because it is not. In order to have an economy grow,
move forward and create jobs it needs to have political stability.
The member forgets something else. Economies operate within a
market system. They are not dictated simply by what the provincial
government in Quebec City does. They are not simply affected by
what a federal government might do in Ottawa. They are dictated in
this country in large part by the markets within which we operate.
Those markets are affected by external factors.
One of those factors is the political stability within which that
market operates. Until that political stability is brought into line,
until that sovereignty option is put aside and the concentration is on
the economy in Quebec there will continue to be economic
problems in that part of this country.
(1240 )
Mr. John Harvard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
let me begin by describing the principles of the Department of
Public Works and Government Services' procurement process. It
will make it obvious that the member for Roberval's motion is
unsubstantiated. It will also make it clear that as the federal
government's main contracting arm and the largest purchasing
organization in Canada, the Department of Public Works and
Government Services is committed to-I want to say this with all
clarity-an open, fair and competitive procurement process that
respects its commitments under international and national trade
agreements.
The department annually issues 80,000 contracts worth almost
$8 billion through a procurement process that is transparent, fair
and open. The fairness and integrity of the process is rarely
challenged.
5665
In its day to day operations, openness, fairness and competition
are the guiding principles for how the department does business
with suppliers and contractors. Its approach is a very practical and
visible example of the government's commitment to governing
with integrity.
One might ask how this is done. First, the department competes
contracts. In other words, bids are invited on a competitive basis
and contracts are let on a competitive basis. It does not allocate
them on a share basis to particular regions. Second, the department
provides fair access to government business through open and
competitive bidding opportunities. Third, its procurement policies
ensure equal and fair access to competitive bidding opportunities
for potential suppliers from all regions of Canada.
I have a few words about contracting statistics and why they are
not a reliable indicator of economic benefit. The contracting
statistics produced by the Department of Public Works and
Government Services reflect the billing address of suppliers.
However, it is clear that a supplier's address does not necessarily
reflect economic activity.
For example, large national oil firms are likely to process all
federal sales through an Ottawa mailing address but we all know
there is no oil production or refining here in Ottawa. There are
many examples of this nature which is why it is futile to examine
contracting statistics as a means of evaluating economic benefits.
It is accurate to say that procurement is probably the most
scrutinized activity of government. It is scrutinized not only by
Parliament but also by Treasury Board, the Auditor General of
Canada, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, disappointed
suppliers, the news media and taxpayers.
I assure the House that the Department of Public Works and
Government Services' procurement system operates with the
highest level of integrity. I emphasize that within the department,
great efforts are always made to ensure that the procurement
system is a transparent one and that we are accountable for our
decisions. Important illustrations of this are open bidding, our
supplier promotion program and the bid challenge mechanism
offered by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal.
Open bidding is the key to helping Canadian firms do business
with the Government of Canada. Open bidding opens up the
purchasing needs of federal departments and agencies to suppliers
that then decide for which requirements they want to compete. I
emphasize that the decision on whether to compete or not rests with
suppliers.
At the heart of open bidding is the open bidding service, often
referred to as OBS, an electronic bulletin board that publicly
advertises bidding opportunities for suppliers. The OBS is
accessible with a personal computer and modem from anywhere in
Canada. Users can log on a DOS or Windows basis and via the
Internet. This information is also available in paper format in a
publication called ``Government Business Opportunities'' for those
suppliers without computers.
Equal access to business opportunities is one of the guiding
principles of Department of Public Works and Government
Services' open bidding system. The system is open to all Canadian
firms, large or small, 24 hours a day and it operates in both official
languages. The department is continually striving to improve the
service. In fact, it views the open bidding service very much as a
work in progress, one that has come a long way since it was
introduced in 1989.
(1245)
Today more than 27,000 subscribers use the OBS to obtain
consistent, timely information on federal government and other
public procurement opportunities. A recent OBS subscriber survey
shows that 90 per cent of subscribers rate the service as good or
very good which tells me that the people using the system like it.
The OBS is just one of the ways in which we are working to
make the procurement system as accessible, fair and effective as
possible for all Canadian businesses.
I should also emphasize that promoting competition, providing
greater access to business and ensuring fairness in public sector
procurement opportunities are the principles at the heart of this
country's agreement on internal trade which has been signed by all
provinces, including Quebec, and the two territories.
The key part of the agreement on internal trade deals with
improvements to government procurement. These improvements
commit all 10 provinces and the two territories not to discriminate
on the basis of province of origin or nature of business.
I trust that I have been able to make clear that the notion of a
regional fair share of federal procurement is a misguided one. That
is not the way we operate. That said, we recognize the important
role that procurement plays in creating jobs and growth here in
Canada. Wherever feasible, within the confines of agreements such
as the World Trade Organization agreement and NAFTA, regional
benefits are given a high priority when evaluating bids for major
government projects.
Assisting Canadian suppliers large and small to do business with
the federal government is a key activity in the Department of
Public Works and Government Services. The main tool used to
accomplish this is the supplier promotion program. Each year this
program holds seminars in all parts of Canada giving participants
practical pointers on marketing to the government and putting them
in touch with key departmental contacts. Last year 170 seminars
were held throughout the country.
5666
In addition, the supplier promotion program has fax sheets
available, written in plain, clear language on a variety of topics
including the open bidding service, free trade and much more. A
booklet called ``Your Guide to doing Business with PWGSC'' is
also available. The booklet provides basic information on doing
business with the department. Today this wealth of information
and a list of upcoming seminars is available 24 hours a day, seven
days a week to anyone with Internet access.
Let me return again to the principle of integrity. As well as being
a cornerstone of how the government operates, integrity in
procurement is also a reflection of the international marketplace.
Our international trade obligations require that our government
procurement practices and transactions be fair and be seen to be
fair. There must be equal access to information about procurement
opportunities, clear rules on how the process is conducted and there
must be an independent appeal mechanism for suppliers seeking
redress.
The Canadian International Trade Tribunal, known as CITT, is
Canada's third party appeal mechanism established to hear
complaints from suppliers who believe that they have not been
treated fairly during any stage of the procurement process for
federal government requirements.
The CITT has the right to issue subpoenas and to make awards to
suppliers in cases where a supplier's complaint is validated by the
CITT. It is interesting to note that of the 80,000 contracts the
Department of Public Works and Government Services awarded in
1995-96, the CITT only received complaints on 37 of these
procurements and of these, only three were upheld as valid
complaints by the tribunal. I think that is a pretty darn good record.
On that note, I end.
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, this is
a very fine and articulate theory but what about practice?
(1250)
Here is practice, and my question to the member opposite will be
based on it. Last year, the Canadian government signed a contract
for armoured vehicles worth $2 billion, that is $2,000 million. This
is not peanuts. This very big contract was awarded without a call
for tenders to, naturally, an Ontario manufacturing industry, which
in turn subcontracted the turrets to a California company for $500
to $600 million, still without a call for tenders.
I know that in Saint-Jean, on the outskirts of Montreal, Oerlikon,
which specializes in this type of equipment, could have fulfilled
this contract at a competitive price, since there was no call for
tenders. But it was not to be.
My question for the member opposite is this: Why did we choose
to give our own taxpayers' money to workers in California rather
than to workers on the outskirts of Montreal?
I want a concrete answer, not only rhetoric.
[English]
Mr. Harvard: Madam Speaker, I know that the hon. member
from the province of Quebec is trying to leave the inference with us
that contractors, companies and all the people of Quebec are
somehow being shafted. They have used that story over and over
again but I can say that in this House of Parliament it does not
work.
The record stands for itself. Quebec companies are doing very
well. In my opinion the member and all members of the Bloc cast a
slur on companies in Quebec every time they stand up and
complain. These companies have strong leadership. Their
executives are good, their workers are very strong and they
compete very well. Looking at the record, we see that Quebec
companies are doing quite well. Let me go down a short list.
SNC Incorporated of Montreal. Everybody knows about that
company. Right now it is supplying the Government of Canada
with munitions. That contract is worth $140 million. Another
company is Allied Signal Aerospace Canada. It has a contract for
$20 million to supply systems for light armoured vehicles. SHL
Systemhouse Inc. has a contract to supply the Canadian Armed
Forces with a computer program to control supply systems. That
contract is worth $30 million.
There is a long list but I will give one more example. Textron
Canada Limited of Mirabel is supplying 100 helicopters to the
Department of National Defence and the benefits to Quebec are
$400 million.
Those members complain, yell and shout that somehow the
province is let out. Do you know what? Yes, the economy is not as
strong as it should be in Quebec. In fact, it is not as strong as it
should be right across the country but if those people would stop
hollering, if they would stop contributing to political instability in
this country and especially in the province of Quebec, their
companies would do even better.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I am very pleased this morning to take part in this debate,
which the Bloc Quebecois considers a fundamental debate.
When one looks at the decline of Montreal, when one sees all the
hopes that were dashed these past few years, one can understand all
the frustration not only on our part but on the part of our fellow
citizens at the government's inaction.
I listened earlier to the hon. member for Outremont and
Secretary of State responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
5667
Development-Quebec. I listened to his arguments and I do not
question his good will in the least.
(1255)
However, I do question the good will and good faith of some of
his colleagues, in particular the Prime Minister of Canada who
came to Montreal to bemoan the decline of the city in front of the
Montreal board of trade and talked about almost everything but the
real issues and the joint actions needed to successfully counteract
this decline.
When I look at all the decisions his government has made in the
last three years, I do not question the good faith or good will of the
hon. member for Outremont. But I do question the good will and
good faith of the Prime minister and his colleagues and, in
particular, the Toronto establishment. I need only look, for
example, at what was done to Air Canada these past few months.
Decisions were made that ran counter to maintaining jobs in
Montreal, which put at risk the very existence of Air Canada's head
office in Montreal with its 1,200 employees. I need only look at
what is being done in shipping, where the St. Lawrence ports are
completely disadvantaged. I need only look at the government's
decisions, and I will consider only the Laval information
technology research center, where the federal government has cut
$10 million and 80 high quality jobs. I need only look at the closure
of the Saint-Hubert Land Force Command, causing the loss of 480
jobs in metropolitan Montreal.
I need only look at what happened to Atomic Energy of Canada's
Tokamak project in Varennes, where 20 per cent of the employees
were transferred to Toronto. And when I hear the Prime Minister
say that he will do everything he can to save Montreal, I doubt it. I
doubt that the Prime Minister is capable of anything except saying
that he will act, without ever putting his words into actions.
I need only look only at the project of creating a Canada-wide
securities commission to have my doubts about whether the Prime
Minister and greater Toronto members in particular are working for
Montreal. Why? Because do you know what the establishment of
such a Canada-wide commission would mean for Montreal? It
would certainly mean the transfer of a major part of Montreal's
financial activities, of its infrastructures and superstructures in the
securities sector. This means a transfer of the decision making
process, of the financial sector's resources from Montreal to
Toronto. This is quite clear. It is so clear that it has nothing to do
with the fact of being sovereignist or against the government.
There are even some good Liberals who have been saying for
years to the federal government that it must not interfere with the
securities sector and, above all, that it must not create new
institutions like a Canadian securities commission that would make
decisions leading to a transfer in Toronto of almost all of
Montreal's financial sector, including tax experts, securities
experts and the whole securities network.
If the government really wants to save Montreal, create jobs and
strengthen economic activity, it cannot create a Canadian securities
commission that would siphon off all of Montreal's financial sector
or large portions of it toward Toronto.
How do you expect us to believe the Prime Minister when he
says that he will help Montreal to recover? Do you really expect us
to believe in his goodwill when it is clear that he will take
deliberate measures to make Montreal lose all of its securities
sector and a good part of its financial sector?
How do you expect to reinforce economic activity if you move it
to Toronto?
(1300)
So, as I was saying, I do not question in any way the good faith
of the member for Outremont, but I certainly may question the
good faith of his government and especially the capacity of the
members from Quebec who sit on the other side to stand up to the
establishment in Toronto, to stand up to the backers of the Liberal
Party of Canada, who are concentrated mostly in Toronto, and to
stand up to the lobbying by the Ontario financial community, which
wants to have this Canada-wide securities commission. And do you
know why they want that? Because, from now on, Toronto will be
the heart of the financial sector and the securities sector.
Not so long ago, Daniel Johnson was premier of Quebec. It was
another era. Lots of things have happened since then. But when he
was premier, he had deemed appropriate to write to the then
President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for
Intergovernmental Affairs, the member for Hull-Aylmer.
Allow me to quote what Daniel Johnson said about the federal
government's interference in the securities sector. He said:
``Perhaps I may remind you first of all that the Government of
Quebec has never supported an expanded federal role in the
securities sector, which is the exclusive responsibility of the
provinces''. That is not us talking, but Daniel Johnson, a good
Liberal.
He goes on to say: ``In the five-year report she tabled in the
National Assembly last December, the finance minister reiterated
Quebec's concerns about the federal regulations regarding the
securities sector, which would be part of this legislation. She
stressed that federal regulations would be inappropriate, both
constitutionally and from the point of view of efficiency''.
I do not often agree with Mr. Johnson, but on this issue we are in
total agreement. In fact, a broad consensus exists in Quebec. At the
end of last spring, the Quebec government's committee on
employment and the economy held hearings regarding the financial
sector, more specifically the securities sector.
5668
All the stakeholders who appeared before the committte
unanimously criticized the federal government's interference in
this sector and the creation of a Canada-wide securities
commission. Federalists and sovereignists alike were unanimous
on that point. Political stripes are never important in Quebec when
the issue is saving and creating jobs, maintaining activities as
important as the securities sector and decision centres in Montreal.
Everyone in Quebec is opposed to this government proposal.
Therefore, they should stop bemoaning the situation in
Montreal. They should put aside this ill conceived proposal, which
verges on madness, especially when one speaks from both sides of
one's mouth. One cannot save or help Montreal, on the one hand,
and kill whole sectors of the financial industry, on the other hand.
I suggest to the hon. member for Outremont, who is the minister
responsible for regional development in Quebec, that he try to
convince his colleagues, especially those from Toronto, to overturn
the decisions and reject the policies of the Prime Minister and the
finance minister in this regard. Once he has done that, I will be
even more convinced of his good faith than I am today.
I have one last comment. I see that the member for Outremont is
anxious to answer, and I am anxious to hear what he has to say, to
hear that he will commit himself to working to have this decision
overturned. Nevertheless, I would ask the following question:
Where are the other members from Quebec today? We are talking
about Montreal and saving Montreal. A single member from
Quebec is here, and he is the minister responsible for the regional
development. This is outrageous.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Madam Speaker, first
of all I must thank my hon. colleague, for whom I have great
respect, for his show of confidence. I would just like to point out
that, notwithstanding the trust put in me, when in the same breath
the will and the good will of the Prime Minister of Canada is put
into question, it is also my own will and good will that is being put
into question.
In that sense, I must say that the Canadian government's policy
in the Montreal strategy is a noble one in that it acts on a serious
situation.
(1305)
I describe the situation as serious because there are more poor
people in greater Montreal alone than in all of Atlantic Canada.
When a government with a national vision wants to ensure that the
country has a dynamic economy, is able to export and can be
competitive-as I said this morning-it has to make sure that large
urban centers throughout Canada have a dynamic economy. It is
our duty to remain active, and I emphasize remain, because we
were already active and will continue to be active in the Montreal
area.
What we are asking official opposition members is basically to
heighten the awareness of their colleagues in the Quebec
government so that they work in partnership with us, a partnership
already endorsed to a very large extent by city officials in
Montreal.
I shall be brief, Madam Speaker. The issue of transportation was
raised earlier, and many aspects were listed. Someone mentioned
for instance that, on June 6, 1996, Via Rail Canada announced its
was consolidating all its operations in the greater Montreal area.
That is quite something.
Regarding the Canadian Securities Commission, I respectfully
submit that it is wishful thinking on the part of my hon. colleague
to say that Quebec will be swallowed up and will have to join in. In
establishing a Canadian Securities Commission, my colleague, the
Minister of Finance, is essentially acting on a request made by a
number of provinces across Canada. With this structure in place,
Quebec will not be required to join in. Its jurisdiction will in no
way be affected.
I think criticism can be good, but it must be constructive
criticism. Now that we have made quite extensively clear the will
to act and plan of action of the government and the Prime Minister
of Canada, I urge them to join in and fall into step.
Mr. Loubier: I thank the hon. member for Outremont and
minister in charge of regional development. But if he really wants
to work, I urge him to show his unflagging faith in Montreal's
future and to publicly undertake to oppose the project for a
Canada-wide securities commission.
The answer he gave when he quoted the Minister of Finance is
far from satisfactory, and I will tell him that no Quebecer believes
in that statement from the Minister of Finance that, if Quebec
refuses to participate in the activities of the Canada-wide securities
commission, the Quebec Securities Commission will remain, and
there will be two commissions.
Nobody believes that, for two reasons. First, when there is a
securities commission for all of Canada, a national commission, it
takes precedence over all of the others. Financial circles will turn to
the Canada-wide securities commission, which will probably be
established in Toronto, because all this government's financial
decisions revolve around Toronto. Second, the government wishes
to increase efficiency, yet it will agree to maintain provincial
securities commissions in addition to a national commission. This
is absolutely inefficient and not in the interest of the financial
circles, which are looking for stability and certainty.
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont, BQ): As you know, Madam
Speaker, a large centre like Montreal does not change overnight, or
even in a year. We are currently experiencing the consequences of
decisions made in the last few decades. Similarly, our children's
lives will be largely influenced by the decisions we make today. In
order to understand Montreal's situation, we have to put things in
5669
perspective. When we have convictions, it is because we put things
in perspective.
(1310)
It is no accident that we are convinced today that Montreal is a
metropolis in need of a country, of a capital that cares for its
metropolis.
Montreal was once a city and a region whose population was
primarily anglophone. At that time, the anglophones were the
masters and we were their servants. There was the affluent
Montreal and the poor Montreal. Poverty had a language, ours.
Things have changed. Today, Montreal is a primarily a
francophone city, and I hope it will be so forever. But, things have
also changed politically. Montreal was once the metropolis of
Canada. Today, political Canada has chosen its metropolis,
Toronto. This is largely due to a series of decisions made by the
federal government.
Montreal is the metropolis of Quebec and it can clearly be
demonstrated that its major problem is that most of the decisions
affecting it are still made in a capital which has another metropolis.
This is the major problem Montreal faces.
When the Prime Minister of Canada came to Montreal to tell us
that we, the sovereignists, are the ones responsible for the
uncertainty and suggested that this uncertainty is responsible for
the decline of Montreal, he just wanted us to forget about our ideals
and, why not our language while we were at it, and to concern
ourselves with concrete things.
I accept the challenge, but only for a few minutes, while I
examine the concrete decisions that the federal government has
taken in the last few years in areas under its jurisdiction.
The Prime Minister presents himself as the reassuring buddy,
and us as the uncertainty. Let us look at each individual issue. In
something that is exclusively under federal jurisdiction, the rail
industry, I would like to ask the 15,000 workers who lost their jobs
in the last years in Montreal if they are reassured by the federal
government's decisions. I would like to ask them who is
responsible for the uncertainty they have to live with now.
I would like to ask the 8,000 workers of the shipbuilding
industry, who lost their jobs as a result of federal decisions, if they
are reassured by the Prime Minister's statement. Do they still want
the federal government to take care of them?
I ask the same thing to the thousands of workers of Montreal's
petrochemical industry, who lost their jobs to Sarnia, Ontario,
following a federal decision to draw an artificial line down the
Ottawa Valley known as the Borden Line. This decision allowed
petrochemical development to take place in Ontario while this
industry declined in Montreal. All Montreal's workers know that
those who are responsible for their uncertainty are not the
sovereignists.
The attitude of the federal Liberal government was similar in
other sectors. I need only think of civil aviation and the
pharmaceutical industry. Let us ask managers and workers of the
pharmaceutical industry if the federal decision power concerning
patents is reassuring for them.
During over 20 years, Canada was the only western country to
deny real patents to a research industry that was well settled in
Montreal. When the Conservative government wanted to change
the legislation and give real patents to this industry, the whole
region had to rally for months instead of putting its energies into its
own development. We constantly have to put a lot of energy into
bringing the federal government to make positive decisions.
Who delayed the bill? Not the Conservative government, but the
Liberal Senate, during several months, in Toronto's pay. Let the
Secretary of State for Regional Development answer that. The
federal government's attitude toward the pharmaceutical industry
could change.
(1315)
We are asked to make concrete proposals. What we want are
basic decisions for Montreal's economy, not an announcement to
the effect that some funding will be provided. In order to dispel the
uncertainty concerning Montreal and drug patents, it must clearly
be stated that the drug patent legislation will be amended by 1997.
The government must pledge that the pharmaceutical industry will
be able to get patents similar to those available everywhere in the
western world. If this is done, investments will increase in
Montreal.
Let me say to those who are listening to us that fundamental
changes have occurred over the years and will continue to occur.
The most important of these changes is the presence, in Ottawa, of
the Bloc Quebecois. The days when federal ministers, or even the
Prime Minister, could secretly make basic decisions that were
unfavourable to Quebec's economy and then try to look good by
announcing some subsidy are over. These days are over.
We do not want the government to announce some subsidy; we
want it to make basic decisions regarding Montreal's economy.
Here is another suggestion. The Sarnia industry, which was
developed at the expense of Montreal's petrochemical industry, is
now asking that the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline go the other way. My
suggestion would not cost one penny to the government. The
government only has to demand that these multinationals revitalize
Montreal's petrochemical industry, in exchange for the service.
They would then contribute to Montreal's development.
5670
What is needed for that? No money is necessary. We know that
governments do not have any money and when they do, it comes
from our pockets. But political will is necessary. The two
suggestions I am making would not cost a thing; they only require
political will. We will be watching to see if this political will is
there. If it is not, the Liberal government will have to pay the price.
Put an end to economic uncertainty.
I want to ensure the Prime Minister that we are still part of
Canada. The No side won the last referendum by a very narrow
margin. Quebec pays $30 billion to be part of Canada; it is a rather
high contribution. We are here to protect the interests of Quebec
and to demand that these $30 billion be used.
I also want to tell him that we will keep our ideals. We will keep
our will to develop our identity, and the Bloc Quebecois will
continue to promote sovereignty and Quebec's interests in Ottawa,
until the fundamental decision on our future is made. We are not
prepared to give up our ideals for a subsidy.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
listened with a great deal of patience to the remarks of the hon.
member for Rosemont. When I listen to him, I get the impression
we do not live in the same metropolitan area.
When people opposite say that what is expected from the
government are fundamental decisions and concrete projects, I
wonder where they have been for the last 20 to 30 years, when the
federal government has been building the modern economy of
Quebec, when it has been contributing to that as a partner.
I wonder also where members opposite have been for the past
few months when we have been taking action everywhere in the
country, particularly in the Greater Montreal area. One needs to
have a vision in order to make fundamental decisions. The Prime
Minister of Canada stated our government's vision this week
before the chamber of commerce, and I have explained it again this
morning.
(1320)
Each and every action we take, based on this vision, from the
most modest ones to the most significant, have been fundamental
actions. The most modest ones have been important for small
businesses. Take for example the Info-entrepreneurs centre in
Montreal which has a resounding success in the business
community because it is filling a need.
Another example is the Centre d'entreprise et d'innovation of
Montreal which has just changed its focus. Members opposite say
we are talking peanuts. These thing are important. The Centre
d'entreprise et d'innovation has just changed its focus in order to
help small businesses more, and young people who want to start
their own business in the new economy.
There have been other federal contributions and more structuring
projects, like Bell Helicopter, in which Quebec and Canada take
great pride. Just think of the latest announcement. They were
talking about peanuts a while ago. But Bombardier-Canadair will
be producing a new regional 70-passenger jet aircraft, and the
Quebec aerospace industry will keep its enviable position on
international markets.
This morning, I spoke about the leading edge in the space
industry. The Canadian Space Agency in Saint-Hubert is part of the
aerospace industry, and it has a ten-year plan representing $2.3
billion.
These are fundamental and concrete projects. This is what it
means to act in a structuring manner and, most of all, with a vision.
In concluding, I will get back to an issue. If my hon. colleagues
opposite want to put their shoulders to the wheel and work
constructively within the framework of the strategy we have
developed, we will be pleased to take all their remarks, provided
they are made in the spirit of that vision and that strategy. However,
they already have elements in their hands. They can surely talk to
their colleagues in Quebec City about the sword of Damocles the
Prime Minister was talking about, and also about the areas under
their jurisdiction, like education, to use them to adequately respond
to the needs of our population and the needs of our young people.
They could also talk to some people who are in charge in the
metropolis, so that we move forward in a partner like manner.
Mr. Tremblay (Rosemont): Madam Speaker, it is interesting to
see how impatient the minister gets when we remind him of the
Liberal government's decisions concerning the rail system,
shipping, civil aviation, the pharmaceutical industry and the
petro-chemical industry.
The people who are watching this are no fools. Of course, a
corporation was granted a subsidy recently. However, I questioned
the minister about two decisions. If he had listened to me the first
time, he would have been able to give me an answer. I put two
questions to him. It would not cost a penny, at a time when millions
of dollars are given away, while hospital budgets and
unemployment benefits are cut. I put two questions to the minister
and he did not answer either one of them. These two decisions are
political and would not cost a penny. What do you intend to do
about the drug patents and about the pipeline to revitalize the
petro-chemical industry in Montreal?
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I will share
my time with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce.
5671
My remarks will deal with the Montreal port, a major element
not only in this country's shipping industry but also in intermodal
tranportation and international trade.
(1325)
The Montreal Port Corporation was created in 1983 by the
federal government as a local port corporation, under the Canada
Ports Corporation Act. In keeping with the national shipping
policy, this port has been designated a Canadian port authority.
Our government's national shipping policy will ensure that the
Canadian shipping industry continues to contribute significantly to
the Montreal economy, by allowing the port to become even more
commercially orientated.
Montreal is one of the busiest inland ports in the world and one
of the main transatlantic traffic transfer centres. With its port, its
international airport, its road and railway networks linking it to
every corner of North America, Montreal is undeniably one of the
hubs of transportation in the world.
Every year, the Montreal port contributes $1.2 billion to the
economy of Montreal, Quebec and the country as a whole. It
accounts for 7,400 direct jobs which, coupled with indirect jobs,
amount to 14,000 jobs.
These economic benefits are more obvious with regard to the
North Atlantic ocean. Of all the eastern seaboard ports, Montreal
provides the most direct and fastest access to the main Canadian
markets, as well as to American markets in the Midwest and the
North East.
This is where transatlantic routes interconnect with the rail and
freeway networks thus reducing the time and cost of door to door
transportation of goods. Traffic back and forth is so important that
it promotes economies of scale and allows shipping lines to offer
regular and frequent services. Importers and exporters can fully
profit from all the advantages of just in time delivery.
The Montreal Port Corporation is financially independent.
Between 1984 and 1995, it generated total net profits amounting to
$148.4 million. During that time, thanks to internally generated
funds, the corporation invested $180 million in capital
expenditures.
In 1987, the Government of Canada approved a transfer to the
equity of the Montreal Port Corporation in the amount of $231
million, comprising $133 million in annuity certificates and $98
million in accrued interests on those certificates.
Therefore, between 1986 and 1995, the government wrote off
part of the debt and accrued interests for a total of $231 million and
the Montreal Port Corporation contributed $108.7 million to the
consolidated fund of Canada in the form of a special contribution
and dividends, so the net result was a positive difference of $122.3
million.
In 1995, the Montreal Port Corporation paid six million in grants
in lieu of municipal taxes. On the other hand, tenants of the port
paid directly $7.7 million in property, municipal and school taxes.
Therefore, in 1995, the Montreal Port Corporation and its tenants
jointly paid $13.7 million in grants in lieu of taxes, municipal taxes
and school taxes.
Given those data and the economic impact of the port activity,
we can conclude that not only is the port not a burden for the
Canadian taxpayer, it is a real motor for the Canadian economy.
(1330)
In the Montreal Port Corporation's business plan, investments or
capital expenditures of almost $110 million are expected for the
five-year period from 1996 to 2000.
With containers on top of the list, the total traffic of goods
handled in the port of Montreal during the first six months of 1996
reached 9.3 million tonnes, an increase of 1.3 million tonnes or 16
per cent compared to the same period last year. There was a traffic
increase in all categories of goods, except one.
During the first semester of 1996, the port of Montreal handled
3.9 million tonnes of various containerized goods, an increase of
more than 570,000 tonnes or 17.2 per cent compared to the first six
months of last year. We must recall that, for the whole of the year
1995, container traffic had reached an unprecedented level in the
main Canadian container port, despite a labour dispute that
paralysed activities on the wharves for 16 days last year.
For the first half of 1996, the port of Montreal has increased its
share of the container market in a context of fierce competition. It
has succeeded to fare better than its competitors on the North
American east coast, and there is every indication it will be another
record year in this sector.
The growth in freight traffic combined with tight control of
administrative and operating costs had a positive impact on the
Montreal Port Corporation's financial performance. As of June 30,
1996, the corporation's net profits amounted to $3.6 million
compared to $1.1 million for the first half of 1995.
All user fees have been frozen for the fourth consecutive year.
Additional improvements were made to the discount program put
in place to stimulate container traffic, and rebates aimed at
increasing other types of freight have been added.
A highlight of the first half of 1996 was the arrival of three
brand-new containerships linking Montreal to northern Europe.
Two of these three ships were christened in Montreal. Canada
Maritime's Canmar Courage and Canmar Fortune each have a
capacity of 2,200 TEU containers, while OOCL Canada, which
5672
belongs to Orient Overseas Container Line, can carry 2,300 TEU
containers.
These three deep-draft ships are currently the largest
containerships sailing on the St. Lawrence. They are on the leading
edge of technology and equipped for winter sailing. The
commissioning of these three great vessels is further evidence of
shipowners' confidence in the Port of Montreal's future.
The highlights of the first semester include improved carrier
services between North America's industrial heartland and
northern Europe and the Mediterranean, as well as the opening of a
new fruit terminal operated by Logistec Arrimage Inc.
This shows the positive economic impact of port operations in
the Montreal area on all trade activities linked to shipping.
(1335)
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened with interest to what the hon. member opposite just said. In
a way, he just sang the praises of the port of Montreal. The fact is
that Montreal did do rather well after all. I say after all on account
of the statistics referred to earlier by the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie, data from our revered Statistics Canada
indicating that for every dollar it pays in taxes to the federal
government, here, in Ottawa, Montreal gets only 75 cents back. All
in all, Montreal did quite well on its three quarters out of a buck.
But how much more would Montreal have been able to accomplish
with that last quarter? That is the real question. You see, for
decades now, the problem has not taken the form of sword of
Damocles dangling over our heads, but rather that of a ball and
chain that we have to drag behind us all the time and that keeps
getting heavier and heavier every time we send money to Ottawa.
We keep getting less and less back and end up getting
shortchanged.
I notice that the majority of government members standing up
are not from the Montreal area. Where are the hon. members for
Pierrefonds, Saint-Laurent, Verdun? I am not saying that they are
not in the House-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I am sorry to
interrupt the hon. member. I recognize the hon. member for
Stormont-Dundas on a point of order.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
members may be tempted from time to time to comment on the
presence or absence of other members, but I do not think that this
serves the important and very sensitive debate we are having today
on the Montreal area.
Mr. de Savoye: Madam Speaker, why are the members I just
mentioned not standing up in this House at this time? I would like
to hear from them. After all, they have the right to represent the
views of their fellow citizens from the Montreal area. I am sure that
they would have something to say on the subject. Why are we not
hearing from them?
I would like my hon. colleague opposite, who made such
complimentary remarks about the port of Montreal, to tell me why.
Once the bill the House is currently considering, the one that will
charge user fees for navigational aids is passed-I hope it will not
but, unfortunately, the government majority holds the opposite
view-when it is in force, resulting in the St. Lawrence seaway
becoming less competitive in the eyes of a number of American
carriers, what will happen to the port of Montreal then? Is Quebec,
and Montreal and its port in particular, not at the mercy of yet
another bad decision made by a centralizing government in
Ottawa?
Mr. DeVillers: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question. I am pleased to inform him that I am sharing my time
with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who is from
Montreal. That should make him happy.
Furthermore, what I said in my speech clearly shows that the
Port of Montreal is doing very well. The hon. member asks me
questions as if I could forecast the future, as if I knew what will
happen after a certain bill becomes law. He has no arguments to
refute what I said in my speech, that the Port of Montreal is doing
fine, better than last year, despite all the cuts made across the
country, and not only at the Port of Montreal.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont-Dundas, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That any recorded division on the opposition motion now before the House be
deemed deferred until Tuesday, October 29, 1996, at the conclusion of Government
Orders.
(1340)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Does the hon.
government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to
propose the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): The House has
heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
[English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce in
Montreal and a fifth generation Montrealer who loves his city,
loves his province and his country, I take this debate very seriously.
The separatists in all their forms, whether sovereignists or Parti
Quebecois or Bloc Quebecois or Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste,
continue to bury their heads in the sand. They refuse to face the
5673
reality that their policies are seriously hurting the economy of
Montreal. They are hurting the recovery of Montreal as one of the
world's great cities.
They refuse to recognize that their policies to hold continual
referendums, to make statements with respect to exclusivity as to
who is really a Quebecois, and from time to time their extreme
language policies are scaring away jobs and new investment.
Obviously not all investment; there is investment in Montreal, but
there could be much more without these negative policies which I
have just referred to.
It is true that Montreal suffers the same problems as all other
smokestack industrial cities, the old industrial cities: the need to
convert to the new economy, the need to convert to high technology
and to globalization. We can debate on another occasion the
effectiveness of these policies by the government to help all
Canadian industrial and commercial cities that are faced with those
same challenges.
In addition to suffering the same difficulties as other North
American cities and cities in Europe that are trying to adapt to the
new economy, Montreal is hit with the additional burden of
continual referendums, extreme nationalism and extreme language
policies.
The Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois talk about
democracy and self-determination and the respect for democracy
and self-determination, but they refuse to recognize the results of
two referendums which have already been held. Their policy seems
to be to continue to have referendums until they win one, no matter
what kind of question and no matter by what margin. They refuse to
recognize the rule of law. They say that they will not recognize
decisions of the supreme court with respect to the universal
declaration of independence issues.
Do such policies encourage employers to come and stay in
Montreal? I would think not. Consider their statements as to who is
and who is not a Quebecois. One day we hear them speak of the
Quebecois in a very exclusive fashion, as if only those who are
descendants of vieille souche Quebecois are really Quebecois,
which results in two types of citizenship in Quebec.
On another day, in a more reflective mood they will say that I am
included, the Blacks are included, the Indians are included,
everyone else is included. But then we had statements in this House
by one member of the Bloc Quebecois who suggested seriously that
only those who fit his definition of Quebecois should have the right
to vote in the referendum. By that he meant the descendants of the
vieille souche Quebecois.
I hear this again. I hear ``nous Québécois avons besoin de notre
état''. When they say ``nous Quebecois'' they do not include me
and many of my electors in Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. They are
speaking of an exclusive ethnic type of nationalism. I ask again:
Does this sort of policy encourage employers to come and stay in
Montreal?
In the same vein, we had the statements by the former premier of
Quebec, Mr. Parizeau and the minister of finance, Mr. Landry,
which attacked the ethnic minorities in Quebec for their votes in
the referendum and the interpretation of the poll results. These
were statements which terribly upset the ethnic minorities in
Quebec. There were recent statements which were even more
extreme from Mr. Villeneuve who attacked the Jewish community
in Quebec and said that they would get theirs once independence
was brought about.
(1345)
Do these kinds of statements encourage employers to come to
Montreal: extremism in language policy; proposals to bring back
the language police, which has even been attacked by part of the
sovereignist community in Quebec and by the trade unions.
However, there is still a proposal to bring back the language police
and other extreme language policies. There is the recent situation at
the hospital in Sherbrooke. The hospital put up bilingual signs to
assist the elderly anglophone community of the eastern townships
who must go to the Sherbrooke hospital and instructions came from
Quebec City to take down the English signs even though they were
in a secondary position.
There have been attacks on Mr. Galganov. In the first place, all
he was doing was asking major businesses on the West Island of
Montreal to respect the Quebec language laws and simply put up
English language signs in accordance with the law of Quebec,
which is English in a secondary position and in smaller letters. He
was asking the stores to do that because their signs were only in
French and yet he was attacked.
Does extremism in language policy encourage other Canadians,
Americans, Europeans and Asians to invest and stay in Montreal?
I want to make clear that I fully support policies, and have for
years, to assure and promote the French language and culture in
Quebec and have it flourish. The federal government has done that
for years and continues to do so. It has done it through
Radio-Canada, CBC, the Canada Council, the CRTC, Telefilm
Canada and assistance to theatres, museums, libraries and research.
It is without a doubt that Quebec, French Canada in general, is
now the second strongest French culture in the world after France.
Nobody can rival Quebec or French Canada. It is strong in writing,
theatre, music and academia. It is very strong and has done that
within the federal system. These extreme policies that I referred to
are not necessary. All they are doing is hurting the economy, the
jobs and the people of Quebec.
The purport of the resolution states that Montreal and Quebec
are not getting their fair share. With respect to federal transfers to
Quebec, in 1996-97, this fiscal year, while Quebec has 25 per cent
5674
of the population of Canada, 31 per cent of the money transferred
from the federal government to the provinces goes to Quebec. I
support that because I think that is a fair share. It amounts to $11.1
billion. It has been approximately at that level for the last six years.
Yesterday there were questions in the House to the Prime
Minister with respect to the granting of contracts in Quebec, saying
that Quebec was not getting its fair share. The Prime Minister
answered correctly that, first of all, we grant contracts on a tender
basis and give out contracts to companies and professionals who
apply for different jobs on a tender basis.
However, it is a question of the chicken and the egg. Quebec
does not have the same number of entrepreneurs and professionals
that it did when I first started in politics here in the 1960s. A lot
have left. A lot have not come who would have come. A lot of
former Montreal businessmen in Montreal head offices are now in
Toronto, Calgary and elsewhere because of the extreme policies of
the PQ governments with respect to these matters. They scared
away firms that would have been there to bid on these contracts and
probably get them for the Quebec people.
With respect to the assistance to industry, I was present this week
when the Prime Minister announced the repayable loan of $87
million to Bombardier to develop a new aircraft. The federal
government has been very supportive of the aircraft industry in
Quebec. I will list them off. There was a contribution by Industry
Canada of $940,000 to Matériaux techniques Côté; a contribution
of $825,000 to École Polytechnique chaire industrielle; $5 million
to Institut de recherche en biotechnologie; $1.7 million to
Mallinckrodt Medical Inc. It goes on and on. Bell Helicopter
received $8 million. Aliments Delisle received $1.5 million.
Galderma received $1.6 million.
(1350 )
With respect to the infrastructure program which has just taken
place over the last two years, the region of Montreal received 400
projects, of which the federal government contributed $236 million
for 12,000 employees.
I see that my time is up. I simply want to say that if the Parti
Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois really want to help with jobs in
the economy in Montreal, they should forget about referendums
and the extremism of their nationalistic policy, co-operate, take up
the offer of the Prime Minister and together we will create jobs and
develop Montreal as it used to be.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
listened very carefully to the speech made by my friend, the hon.
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. I cannot, in any way, share his
views on the Quebec sovereignist movement.
The term ``Quebecer'' is not exclusive, it is inclusive. It includes
anglophones, such as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce,
and allophones, such as the member for Bourassa. The hon.
member condemns the comments made by Villeneuve toward
Jews, as we all did here in this House and elsewhere but, at the
same time, he congratulates Mr. Galganov. The same rules should
apply to two extremist members of Quebec's society.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and other Liberal
members remained silent when a minister of this government, the
former Minister of Human Resources Development, asked me to
leave Canada, to look for another country, because I do not approve
the government's policy and because I am a sovereignist member
of Parliament. The member did not say anything then, nor did other
government members.
It is unbelievable to hear a minister tell us there are two types of
Canadians and Quebecers: those who agree with the federal
government's policy are welcome, while those who do not must
leave the country. I cannot accept such comments.
I also want to put a question to the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. The federal government's inaction is the
reason why Montreal's economic situation is catastrophic. It is
because of measures taken by this government if, for example,
Canadian International moved and is now concentrating its
operations in the west, if it secured the rights to fly to the Czech
Republic and is now Canada's carrier to the Asian market.
Air Canada is adversely affected because its head office is in
Montreal. It cannot fly to Asia, it cannot fly delegates to the Liberal
Party convention this weekend. Canadian International does it, as it
will also fly those who will attend the rock concert, etc. Why? Tell
me.
The Speaker: The hon. member will agree that this is a
comment rather than a question. Nevertheless, I will give the hon.
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce an opportunity to reply.
[English]
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, while I share many things and some
policies in common with my hon. friend, I guess this is an area
where we disagree.
To being with, it is true that some members of the Bloc
Quebecois and some members of the Parti Quebecois when they
speak of Quebecois do include in their reflective moments all of us
in Quebec, anglophones, minorities and so on. But there are others
and even some in this House who when they speak about nous les
Quebecois do not include us.
For example, I cannot remember the seat, but one hon. member
during the referendum campaign stood up and said that only ``les
Québécois doivent avoir le droit de voter au référendum''. He
meant and he clarified that, and it was also said by a member of the
5675
PQ in Quebec, that this meant the real Quebecois. By that he meant
those who were the descendants of vieille souche.
(1355)
There is abiguity over there. The hon. member says that the
definition is inclusive. However, there are many others who speak
of it exclusively and I could give many examples.
With respect to Mr. Galganov, I did not congratulate him on
everything he did and said. I said he was right, however, when he
campaigned on the West Island of Montreal to assure that the signs
were both in English and French in accordance with the Quebec
law which the Quebec government supported up until now. When
Mr. Galganov did that he was right. He was not attacking the
Quebec government. He was telling the various major stores on the
West Island ``do what the law gives you the right to do''. In that he
was right. I do not congratulate him for calling certain people
bastards. I think he went too far on that.
Mr. Speaker, I have much more to say.
The Speaker: Yes, I would imagine. I know you meant that in
sort of an oblique sense. At least I hope you did, my colleague.
In any case, I am going to save all of us because it is almost two
o'clock. If we are ready we will proceed to Statements by
Members.
_____________________________________________
5675
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I wish to draw to the attention of the House the fact that a very
talented member of Parliament has won the Elected Officials
Ploughing Championship at the recently held 79th annual
Peterborough County Ploughing Match.
Yes, the member for Peterborough has accomplished something
quite unique. He won the title last year for the first time, the first
for any member of Parliament to win this event.
Now he will officially be known as Re-Pete, not just Pete. I
congratulate the member for Peterborough and send out this notice.
Next year the member for Victoria-Haliburton will end this reign
of the member for Peterborough. There will be no Three-Pete.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, from time to time members search for acceptable words to
use to describe blatantly inaccurate statements by other members.
Well, the Prime Minister has kindly provided us with a new one.
On a recent trip to the west, the Prime Minister made numerous
statements of very questionable accuracy. When challenged, his
response was that he was using linguistic shorthand. That explains
a lot.
When the Liberals claim they have fulfilled their red book
promise to create jobs in the face of unemployment figures which
show that unemployment is still just as high as when they took
office, it is linguistic shorthand.
And when the finance minister claims to have fulfilled the red
book promise to break the back of the deficit while increasing our
debt by $111 billion and increasing our debt servicing costs by
more than the total transfers to provinces for health care, that is
linguistic shorthand.
The next federal election is coming soon and Canadians will get
to decide whether they want more linguistic shorthand from the
Liberals or a fresh start from Reform.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this week is Small Business Awareness Week. With more
than 1 million small businesses in Canada, they are the engines
driving the economy and creating the jobs, and women are the
leaders in business today. Before they used to be behind the scenes.
Today they are front and centre.
In fact, business firms led by women entrepreneurs are creating
jobs in Canada at four times the average of all other firms. Between
1984 and 1990 in Atlantic Canada the percentage of women owned
business employing five or more full time employees increased
from 16 to 28 per cent. This is extraordinary growth and women are
indeed succeeding in business.
I urge the government to develop programs to help small
businesses that are particularly sensitive to the economic potential
of women entrepreneurs.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, this week being small business week in Quebec,
I am happy to inform the House that, recently, a man from my
riding, Gilles Pansera of Industries manufacturières Mégantic, was
awarded the Grand Prix de l'entrepreneur du Québec for 1996 in
the business recovery category.
Mr. Pansera is well known in the Eastern Townships for his
dynamism and his keen sense of entrepreneurship.
5676
(1400)
Efforts made since 1990 by management and employees of
Industries manufacturières Mégantic have not only helped this
business recover, but it has ensured its success for the future.
This is another concrete example of the positive results that can
be obtained, particularly in the area of job creation, when all the
partners work together to ensure the economic vitality of a region.
Congratulations to Mr. Pansera and to all his associates who
gave us another good opportunity to celebrate the pride of the
Eastern Townships.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, as all
members of Parliament know, security officers employed by
Bradson Mercantile Inc. are locked out by their employer. The
security officers, represented by the United Steelworkers Union,
are picketing the House of Commons today.
The security guards currently earn an average wage of $7.25 an
hour. All these employees are asking for is a fair contract, one
similar to other agreements being agreed to by the competitors of
Bradson.
Instead of negotiating in good faith, the company is challenging
the United Steelworkers' right to represent these workers. They
have forced the workers to train replacement workers who are now
on the Hill.
I urge all members of Parliament to support these workers'
legitimate demands. I urge all members to speak with these people
and hear their case. And I urge the Prime Minister to prevent scab
workers from replacing contracted employees on Parliament Hill.
* * *
Mr. Walt Lastewka (St. Catharines, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
company in Niagara is the regional award recipient of the Canadian
Airlines Foundation's Small Business International Expansion
Program.
Indexable Cutting Tools of Canada Limited received this honour
earlier this year. The Canadian Airlines representative said: ``Our
selection team was very impressed with not only your
entrepreneurial spirit but also your international expansion
initiatives to your unique business. We are delighted to support
your pathway to continued success''.
Indexable Cutting Tools is on the path to success. It is a
reputable and exemplary company that has been expanding because
of demands for their high quality products.
This week we are celebrating small business in Canada. It is
important for us to congratulate the many small Canadian firms
that support jobs and growth in our economy.
I would like to congratulate the president of Indexable Cutting
Tools of Canada Limited, Mr. John Precious, and the employees
who make this company a great Canadian success.
* * *
Mr. Gerry Byrne (Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, this is Small Business Week, a very important week
when we celebrate the contributions the small business sector is
making to the economic well-being of Canada.
The small business advisory committee, which was created by
Revenue Canada, is working to assist the very same businesses and
business people we now celebrate.
The committee, made up of private sector members, advises
Revenue Canada and provides feedback to the department on
policies and procedures to help the sector prosper, grow and to be
competitive. This committee has been an important part of
Revenue Canada becoming a positive force in the development of
small business in this country.
As we celebrate Small Business Week, let me also say to
Revenue Canada: Bravo.
* * *
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canada Post mandate review was recently made public yet when I
was in Winnipeg last Tuesday, Canada Post officials refused to
meet with me to discuss the Radwanski report. The Canada Post
review is a public report but the Post Office refuses to discuss
allegations made in the report.
This government promised more open government yet it could
not even get in the doors of the Winnipeg post office. Why is this?
What is this government trying to hide? The red book says that if
government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty
and integrity in our institutions must be restored.
According to the Radwanski report on Canada Post, Canadians
presently own a crown corporation which has a complete monopoly
on first class mail, that is faced with serious allegations of unfair
competition and cross subsidization in the courier business, and is
seriously under performing in its delivery of mail. However, when I
asked to meet the Winnipeg postal officials to discuss the
allegations in this report, they refused.
So much for the red book promises.
5677
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, October
24 is World Development Information Day. This day is most
important, especially in light of the fact that a United Nations
development program report published last week showed a
dramatic increase in the poverty level worldwide.
(1405)
While extreme poverty is growing at an alarming rate, official
development assistance is being cut repeatedly everywhere in the
world, including in Canada. The government must respond to the
United Nations' invitation because development is the antidote
against poverty.
Considering how important it is for Canadians and Quebecers to
be better informed on these issues, the official opposition is asking
the Liberal government to reinstate CIDA's public participation
program to support non-governmental organization initiatives in
this area.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
sugar industry's access to the United States continues to be
restrained by unfair trade restrictions by the U.S. government.
Canadian sugar exports to the U.S. were drastically reduced last
year when the Americans lowered our export quota. As a result, the
Lantic Sugar Refinery in my city of Saint John has had to lay off
employees.
These tariffs are estimated to cost many hundreds of Canadian
jobs in the sugar industry. The U.S. has refused to respond to its
NAFTA obligations to terminate its re-export of sugar-containing
products by October 1, 1996.
The all-party sugar caucus, of which I am a member, has just
passed a unanimous resolution. The resolution calls for measures to
protect Canadian jobs and investment. As a member of the sugar
caucus I call on the Minister for International Trade to immediately
challenge these unfair trade restrictions and request formal
consultations under NAFTA in order to preserve our sugar industry
and save hundreds of Canadian jobs.
* * *
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
entire national capital region is ever so grateful to the leader of the
third party for coming to Ottawa to turn us from a cliquey one
industry town into a high tech powerhouse.
We learned that lesson a quarter of a century ago and for 25 years
the businesses and municipalities in this community have been
working to develop a vibrant and diverse economy.
Perhaps the leader of the third party has heard of companies
called Nortel, Corel and Newbridge, local companies that have
gone international and are developing jobs by the thousands. They
are one of the reasons our unemployment rate has dropped from 11
per cent last August to just over 7 per cent this past month.
Perhaps the Reform leader needs to give himself a fresh start, get
out of his office and his hotel room and find out about this nation's
capital.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to draw attention to a program organized by the Collège
universitaire de Saint-Boniface, the Société franco-manitobaine
and the Saint-Boniface Chambre de commerce francophone, all in
my riding.
Official partners in operation ``Let's Talk'', these organizations
are encouraging dialogue among Manitobans in order to promote
understanding of the cultural, linguistic and ethnic differences of
Canadians and of their founding peoples.
A series of articles on francophonie in the Winnipeg Free Press
are giving people an opportunity to send in written questions to a
panel, for later reply. This dialogue provides a more balanced view
of Canada and of Canadians.
[English]
Operation Let's Talk permits Manitobans to learn about the
history of Canadians and how best to deal with our differences.
[Translation]
I applaud this initiative and the action taken by this group to
promote unity in our country.
[English]
Best of luck to operation Let's Talk.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Laurent Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, another member from Montreal wants to speak today.
5678
The Liberal Party convention, which began today, will be the
scene of some very important debates on a host of subjects of
interest to all Canadians. The issues of job creation, social
programs, tax reform, research and development, the fight against
poverty, assistance to small business, and measures to promote
exports are all subjects that our delegates will be addressing.
Our party has always listened to the legitimate concerns of all
Canadians, including those living in Quebec, and particularly in
Montreal.
Unlike the Bloc Quebecois, the Liberal Party of Canada does not
wait for summits and splashy media events to begin thinking about
the issues of concern to Montreal. We are tackling these issues on a
daily basis, and it is time the Bloc Quebecois gave us a hand, rather
than continuing to hold its threat of separation over people's heads.
* * *
(1410)
Mr. Benoît Tremblay (Rosemont, BQ): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow
the federalist forces will celebrate what is known as the love-in of
October 25, 1995 in Montreal. A year ago, faced with the
popularity of the sovereignist option and having nothing tangible to
offer Quebecers, the hard-core federalists, today's supporters of
Plan B, organized what the senior editorial writer of
La Presse,
Alain Dubuc, qualified as a declaration of love that was too little,
too late.
This demonstration and the celebration of its anniversary are a
good illustration of the position of Canadian federalists. Quebecers
are not a people. Quebec has no right to determine its future, and its
aspirations regarding its status in Confederation will be given no
consideration. The government prefers to appeal to the courts and
support extremists like Guy Bertrand and Howard Galganov.
Tomorrow's demonstration will once again reflect the
intellectual vacuum that exists in the federal camp.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, since this
is red book revival and review week, let me quote from
``Governing With Integrity'', page 91:
If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity
in our political institutions must be restored.
A response by our Deputy Prime Minister during question period
on Monday strained both of these.
The Deputy Prime Minister said I received a letter which I never
had. The letter she referred to was not a letter but a fax addressed
to her and I was not shown as receiving a copy, nor did I. She
claimed the letter she had was from a member of the Reform Party.
In fact this person is not a member of the Reform Party and never
has been.
Earlier the Deputy Prime Minister attacked some of my
colleagues for faxing her office on behalf of constituents. Now she
attacks me for not doing that. Rather than answer the question
about where the $23 million for flags is coming from we get
doubletalk and distortions.
The Deputy Prime Minister bragged that she kicked butt on
January 17, but it is clear she did not learn a thing.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
sudden interest in Montreal shown by the Bloc Quebecois
yesterday is surprising and even suspicious. It was not until our
Prime Minister took the initiative and invited the Quebec
government to collaborate on the development of Montreal that the
Bloc Quebecois realized that action was urgently needed.
Bloc members whose sole objective is to separate Quebec from
Canada suddenly realized they were interested in Montreal.
Yesterday they claimed not enough was being done for Montreal.
The Bloc Quebecois and its separatist platform have probably
done more harm to the economy of Montreal than all other factors
combined. They should stop complaining and stop talking about
separation. That would be the best thing that could happen to
Montreal.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is with
much sadness that I rise in the House today to pay my respects to
Colleen Peterson.
Colleen, a treasure of Lakefield, Ontario, had a tremendous
career in country music. In 1977 she won a Juno as the most
promising female vocalist. She moved to Nashville for more than a
decade, writing hundreds of songs for such talents as Anne Murray
and Roger Miller.
Returning to Ontario in 1992, she pursued her true love, singing.
In 1991 her solo song ``No Pain, No Gain'' was the number one
country song in Canada. She was also an integral part of the group
Quartette which won a Canadian country music award.
5679
Her other love was animals. Besides owning numerous horses
Colleen helped establish the Lakefield Animal Welfare Society.
Colleen Peterson was a beautiful person and a beautiful singer.
To her family and friends I extend our condolences.
* * *
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this being
Small Business Awareness Week I rise today to express my deepest
congratulations to the winner of the small business award in Fort
McMurray, Alberta.
The winner this year is 2000 Plus, a maintenance service
company that performs work for Syncrude Canada and other oil
and gas operators. It has only been in operation for five years and in
that short time it has grown from a tiny enterprise to a $4.5 million
annual operation. It has grown from six employees to 70 full time
workers, 90 per cent of which are aboriginal.
(1415 )
Not only has 2000 Plus won this award but they have been
nominated for the Candu award for economic development. The
secret of its success is flexibility in planning and a high degree of
attention to safety, reliability and quality with a great record of
customer satisfaction.
My caucus colleagues and I would like to congratulate the
employees of 2000 Plus and, in particular, Ed Courtoreille,
president of 2000 Plus and Mikisew Cree Chief Archie Waquan for
winning this award.
_____________________________________________
5679
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the time has come for the Liberal government to meet
with its party faithful this weekend, in order to look at the
commitments it has made to the Canadian people. The Prime
Minister claims he has kept his commitments but, essentially, his
record has been a big fat zero.
The Liberal government got itself elected with its slogan of
``jobs, jobs, jobs'', which it repeated high and low in order to
convince the public that employment was its top priority.
What can the Prime Minister say today to the million and a half
Canadians who are not working, still not working, despite the
Liberal promises, while the unemployment rate still hovers around
the 10 per cent mark? What can the government and the Prime
Minister say to these people, except to admit that they have not
met their commitment?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the
leader of the opposition and to tell him that the Government of
Canada will be extremely proud to meet the Liberal Party faithful
during this weekend's magnificent convention.
Of course, while the unemployment level is still too high to
satisfy us, it has nevertheless improved considerably since 1993.
We have made a magnificent contribution through three of the
finance minister's budgets, which have left interest rates at 3.75 per
cent, lower than they have been in 38 years, three points lower than
the level in the U.S. The investment climate in Canada has never
been better.
Transition toward the new economy is sometimes hard, but there
are 600,000 more jobs in Canada today than there were in 1993. In
the next few weeks, moreover, we are going to announce some
extremely interesting youth employment initiatives, since we are
concerned with the employment future of our young people.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, one more who feels everything is just going fine. This
government is totally clueless.
The new Minister of Employment-I do not know if the former
one has clued him in completely-must know that we would need
more than 870,000 jobs to get the economy back to the way it was
in 1989. He tells us everything is fine, yet we are 870,000 jobs
short of the way things used to be. Clueless.
In the red book, in 1993, the Prime Minister said, and I
quote-and I hope the other side is listening properly, for it is their
Prime Minister speaking: ``Today, after nine years of Conservative
government, Canadians are facing hardship: 1.6 million
unemployed, millions more on welfare, a million children living
below the poverty line, record numbers of bankruptcies and plant
closings''.
Does the Prime Minister realize that three years later, he could
write that same thing again, exactly, for their next campaign
platform?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I realize that the leader of the
opposition has a problem: he is very hard of hearing. I never said
everything was fine, and I am not in the least proud of the
unemployment situation at this time.
(1420)
What I said is that we still have a lot to do, but we have done an
enormous amount of work in putting public finances in order, with
the result that we are saving millions, billions of dollars as a
society at the present time in interest rates, because the
international markets have confidence in our government. That
creates jobs.
5680
That is reality, an extremely important reality and one in which we
shall continue.
We shall have an even more interesting program for young
people within a few months. As for the 800,000 jobs referred to,
many jobs were lost. That is reality. That is normal. We are
undergoing an economic transition which means that jobs are
constantly changing. If jobs had not been lost, we would be in even
more trouble, because the economy has changed. I am very much
aware that the opposition does not realize that we are in a period of
evolution, but we are in the process of adapting our programs in
order to help get workers back to work. And the 600,000 jobs are in
addition to the 800,000 which were-
The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the minister. The Leader of
the Opposition has the floor.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Do not
worry, Mr. Speaker, he will eventually learn.
The former teacher in me would mark his oral presentation as
follows: ``A'' for the number of words, ``Z'' for the number of
ideas.
The red book, which will be discussed this weekend, contains
these words: ``Whose job will go next? For the first time in
decades, Canadians are seriously concerned that children will be
less well off than their parents''. That is what the Liberal Party
wrote in its red book in 1993.
What can the Minister of Employment say to young Canadians
without jobs, when Statistics Canada shows that the Liberal regime
brought a decrease of 25,000 jobs for 15 to 24 year-olds? What
does he have to say now?
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, he has plenty to say. The
Minister of Human Resources Development Canada has plenty to
say. First, he would like to ask young people to stay in school as
long as possible, and to get the best training possible, for the
statistics the Leader of the Opposition has just cited do not refer to
young people with training, whose rate of unemployment is lower
than the Canadian average, if you look at your figures properly.
So, what I have to say to young people today is this: Stay in
school, get as much training as you can. That is your best chance
for a job. I can also tell you that what society needs at this point is
economic stability, political stability. Early this week we had an
extraordinary speech by the Prime Minister of Canada, to which I
shall refer again this afternoon. He went to Montreal to offer his
co-operation, his solidarity to all Canadians to rebuild Montreal.
And what have we had ever since? The only vision these people are
capable of is division, constant division and redivision, like the
hon. member for Rosemont tried to do, when he spoke to us this
morning of the way Montreal used to be, divided between the
English and the French.
* * *
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Words,
words, words, Mr. Speaker. We do not want words, we want action.
We want job creation.
In their notorious red book, the Liberals promised more justice,
fairness and transparency in the Canadian tax system. But
remember the Minister of Finance, when he said he would not
eliminate the GST as his government had promised and naively
admitted to misinforming the entire population of this country.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Now that
her government has offered a bribe of nearly one billion dollars to
three maritime provinces so they will harmonize their sales tax
with the GST, will the Deputy Prime Minister have the courage to
admit that her government did not abide by its campaign
promise-and here it comes, in case she forgot-to eliminate the
GST, not harmonize it, not hide it in the sale price, not shamefully
waste one billion dollars of Canadian taxpayers money?
(1425)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, we have just set up the process for harmonizing sale
taxes in this country. The Atlantic provinces were the first to get on
board, after Quebec, because they know it is crucial to job creation.
In fact, I wish to congratulate the former Government of Quebec
for having the courage to harmonize its sales tax, and I congratulate
the Atlantic provinces, because they want to create jobs and know
that by reducing their costs and becoming competitive, they will be
able not only to compete with the other provinces but the United
States as well. That is how we build a strong economy.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I want to congratulate the Government of Quebec,
because it is doing its job and gives the people real information. It
does not shamefully waste one billion dollars on political
compensation for an agreement entered into locally with the
maritimes. That is what I have to say. I cannot congratulate the
Minister of Finance.
My supplementary is also directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
In the red book, the Liberal government also promised to make
the tax system more equitable. Will the Deputy Prime Minister
admit that by refusing for more than three years to initiate a
thorough tax reform, as the Bloc Quebecois asked it to do, the
government has reneged on its promises in the red book and even
perpetuated inequities through its shameful cover-up of the family
trust scandal?
5681
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this is ridiculous. The hon. member for the opposition knows
perfectly well that we eliminated all the tax benefits for family
trusts. I have four pages of tax loopholes here, and I will read them
to you. They are too long, and I cannot remember them all.
Eliminate capital gains tax exemptions of $100,000; eliminate
tax benefits for limited recourse financing; tighten the rules for
debt remission; eliminate the use of butterfly transactions, and I
could go on. We have eliminated the loopholes. Thanks to this
government, the tax system in Canada is fairer than it has ever
been.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I see
that the Prime Minister has unveiled yet another piece of Canadian
fiction, a record of achievements. I am sure that Margaret Atwood
is just shaking in her pants, as the Prime Minister would say.
We have taken a look at the red book and at the Liberal record.
The reality is that the Prime Minister has broken more promises
than he has kept. Seventy per cent of the red book promises have
gone unfulfilled. The Liberals have broken 136 commitments they
made to Canadians in the last election campaign.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, how can she imagine that the
Liberals have kept 80 to 90 per cent of their promises when fully 70
per cent of the red book promises have gone totally unfulfilled?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the
member's arithmetic on this one is about as good as it was on the
fresh start platform.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that
kind of an answer is exactly the proof that Canadians sitting in the
gallery here and right across the country need a fresh start.
The imaginary friends in the Prime Minister's life believe that
the Liberals may have kept their promises but real Canadians will
not buy it. They remember the Liberal broken promise of jobs,
jobs, jobs; renegotiating NAFTA; stable multiyear funding for the
CBC; protecting universal day care and medicare; and their
promise of course to kill, scrap and abolish the GST. Those are only
five of the biggest whoppers in the red book. There are 131 more.
Why has the Prime Minister resorted to this piece of creative
opportunism the Liberals have just released today instead of just
telling Canadians the truth, the plain simple truth, that the Liberal
Party of Canada, this government, is truly the home of the
whopper?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously the Liberal
Party has not done as much as it intended to do in terms of
completing the promises in the red book. We have only completed
78 per cent of the promises in the red book.
(1430)
We hope that the people of Canada will give us the confidence to
continue to govern. We are not perfect, but we are going to do our
best. Our party is the only party in the history of Canadian politics
that has actually put its promises in writing completely in advance
of an election so we could let the people be the judge. That is what
we intend to do.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there
certainly is wisdom in getting a platform out ahead. That is exactly
what we did last week.
Jobs, jobs, jobs. Some promise. There are 1.4 million Canadians
unemployed. One in four Canadians are worried about the jobs they
have.
Protecting medicare? A $7 billion Liberal cut to social programs,
with $3 billion of that coming directly out of health care, and the
Liberals know that.
Stable funding for the CBC? The Liberals cut its budget by a
third.
The list of broken promises goes on and on: free votes, an
independent ethics counsellor-remember that one?-day care
centres and spaces. ``We will restore Canadians' faith in
themselves and their government'' was a promise in the red book. I
can hardly believe it.
Why did the government not provide Canadians with a reality
check, that is, that 62 promises have been kept and 136 promises
are unfulfilled, instead of this list of imaginary red book
achievements?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the sad thing about the
Reform Party and probably the reason it is at single digits in the
polls is that when the government comes forward with jobs
initiatives, all it gets from the Reform Party is criticism.
We made an announcement earlier this week in Montreal to
create Canadian jobs in a city which desperately needs them.
Reformers said nay. We announced a cultural production fund that
will create 30,000 jobs in Canadian television. They said no. We
announced projects which put $3 billion into the economy by way
of infrastructure. The Reform Party said no.
The fresh start of the Reform Party would send the Canadian job
situation into a tailspin. That is why the Canadian public has
massively rejected the policies of the Reform Party.
5682
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
its red book, the Liberal Party of Canada accused the Tories of
having jeopardized Canadian culture with their drastic cuts in
cultural funding. The Liberal Party promised stable multiyear
financing for national cultural institutions. However, since it came
to power, it has cut $350 million in the CBC's budget alone, thus
forcing the corporation to lay off close to 4,000 cultural workers.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage.
Mr. Volpe: Now, now.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): You may laugh, all of you
champions in job creation. Does the minister believe that, in
making unprecedented cuts such as those inflicted upon CBC by
her government, she is fulfilling her electoral promises in the areas
of culture and job creation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, when the
Bloc Quebecois talks about culture it is again filibustering since,
according to the latest survey conducted by Statistics Canada, of all
the governments having to make cuts, Quebec's is the one which
has cut the most in the cultural area.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, one
does not get taller by stepping on somebody else's head.
Some hon. members: Ah, ah.
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): My supplementary is for the
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Since the Liberals came to power, the CBC French network has
eliminated 1,300 jobs, mainly in the Montreal area. They are
telling us they are looking after Montreal and always have, and yet
most of these 1,300 jobs were lost in the Montreal area.
Is it not outrageous that while she is making these cuts, she is
sinking several million in a flag campaign and in an Information
Canada type committee?
(1435)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is such a pity that the
member is insisting on ridiculing the Quebec government. The fact
is, according to statistics widely available, for every $1.16 the
federal government spends in Quebec on Canadian culture, the
Quebec government only spends 86 cents.
I think he should appeal to his head office to solve the Quebec
culture issue, which is undergoing more drastic cuts at the hands of
the Quebec government than what Canada is doing.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
obviously the Liberals should have called the red book the unread
book.
Yesterday's announcement on books was a big zero for students
and consumers who will still pay GST on reading materials. This is
despite the fact that the Liberals have passed a priority resolution
that their government would ``remove the goods and services tax
on reading materials''.
Can the finance minister explain to these same Liberals
gathering in Ottawa today for their lovefest why his government
has reneged on this promise, as well as the eye popper that they
would axe, scrap and abolish the GST entirely?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member is referring to a resolution that was passed at a
party convention and is not referring to a commitment of the
government.
There is no doubt that every single member in this House and
every single member in the Liberal Party would like to eliminate
the tax on books. The problem very clearly is that we also have to
deal with a very difficult financial condition in this country and we
are achieving a balance.
The balance is to promote literacy. The way in which we have
decided to do it is to be selective. Yes, we are going to support
those who are in the front line in the fight to promote literacy. We
are going to eliminate the tax on books for schools, libraries,
municipalities and charities. This is very important. If the hon.
member does not understand how important it is that we take very
scarce financial resources and promote literacy, then I wonder what
in God's name he is doing in this House.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister takes scarce financial resources and gives them to his well
heeled buddies at Bombardier. That is what he does.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: Colleague, please be very judicious in your choice
of words.
Mr. Solberg: How about the red book promise on jobs? The
Retail Council of Canada has called the government's billion dollar
harmonization deal a declaration of economic separation because it
is going to cost $100 million annually in Atlantic Canada. That is
what the job creators are saying.
5683
Can the finance minister explain to Canadians why his red book
promised jobs, jobs, jobs while he is cutting political deals like
these that mean ``higher costs, lower quality, less selection, higher
prices and fewer jobs''? That is what they are asking in Atlantic
Canada.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
far as the retail council is concerned, we have made it very clear
that we are prepared to work with the retail council. We will sit
with the council to make the transition as painless as possible.
There is no doubt there are going to be changes. The government
has said it will be very flexible in the administration of those
changes.
As far as tax inclusive pricing is concerned, public polling has
been done in the last while which shows overwhelmingly that
Canadians want tax inclusive pricing. They do not want the sticker
shock. They want to know what the final price is.
Why is it that the Reform Party, which claims to be a populace
party, wants to take actions which are not in the best interests of
Canadian consumers?
The hon. member for Beaver River wants to talk about reality
checks. Let us look at reality checks. The day that the famous
Reform Party program was revealed by the hon. member on the
CBC what was basically said was that it was going to eliminate
taxes for people making over $150,000 and the member was caught
speechless. The provincial premiers said that it would devastate
their cuts.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, during the last election campaign, the Liberal Party
published a red book that talked about the economic recovery of
greater Montreal. The Liberals promised to create a joint action
committee for the development of the greater Montreal area.
The Speaker: My dear colleague, members must not anticipate
an order of the day, particularly when the same question is
involved. I will hear the question, but the preamble comes a bit
close.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, this is not an opposition day about
the red book, but about Montreal.
I therefore ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether she can tell us
what became of the promise in this party's electoral platform to
create a joint action committee for the development of the greater
Montreal area.
The Speaker: Dear colleague, we seem to be having a debate. I
see that the minister has risen, and I will allow him to reply, but I
would prefer that we not have debate at this point.
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a few
weeks before the last election, we put out an electoral platform
entitled: ``For the economic recovery of greater Montreal''.
If you look at this electoral platform, the majority of the
promises made by the government have been kept. And what we
did for Montreal was essentially to have all the departments
involved in the economic recovery of Montreal take a horizontal
approach.
We followed our vision, and today we see the concrete results.
Here are a few: Bell Helicopter, in the aerospace industry, Ericsson,
Biochem Pharma, Merck Frosst, Spar, SR Telecom, Harris, the
Institut-
The Speaker: My dear colleagues, I hope this will not be about
Montreal again. Perhaps members could look a bit beyond.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): By all
means, Mr. Speaker, let us look beyond.
In other words, what the Secretary of State for Montreal and
beyond has just told us is that they did not keep this promise. That
is clearly what he told us: ``We kept a number of promises, but not
that one''. Let us try again. Maybe something was done way back
of beyond.
They promised a recovery in housing, thanks to a redevelopment
program that will be of particular benefit to older neighbourhoods
and beyond, Mr. Speaker.
Knowing that the Prime Minister has said that he wants to get out
of the housing sector, which comes under provincial jurisdiction,
perhaps he can tell us today whether he will be turning over to
Quebec the money he promised to invest in Montreal and beyond,
or whether, once again, this was just so much hot air?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Federal Office of
Regional Development-Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, now they
are talking about greater Montreal or the surrounding area.
I am pleased to say in this House, in this democratic forum, that
between 1986 and 1993, Quebec received in the order of 29 per
cent of all federal funds set aside for public housing. In 1995,
through the efforts of our government, Quebec received 32.2 per
cent of federal funds set aside for social reform.
Discussions were entered into with all the provinces. They are
proceeding well with the province of Quebec, obviously, but there
is not yet any concrete result. But Quebec is receiving its full share
of the pie, and then some, as far as public housing goes.
5684
[English]
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the red book promised integrity. At a recent fundraiser in Toronto
the Prime Minister said: ``I am not going to buy votes with the
Canadian people in the next election''.
But he has done just that: an $87 million interest free loan to
Bombardier, a company that had a profit of $167 million for the six
months ending July 31 of this year.
(1445 )
Will the Prime Minister or his spokesman admit to the jobless
people of Canada that the interest free loan to Bombardier was pure
and simple pork barrelling and that a profitable company like
Bombardier should not receive corporate welfare?
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Reform Party did not look
into this matter before it asked the question.
The whole matter of the moneys involved, the $87 million, deals
with an investment approach. There is an investment by the federal
government which requires full repayment and upon profits being
made, a sharing of the profits in question. But then again, that is not
a matter that the Reform Party is used to seeing generally in the
repayment of moneys on matters like this.
The federal government is not involved in the business of giving
grants. We simply give moneys in an investment and then require
repayment. That is what has happened.
It is strange that Reform Party members continuously harp on
matters such as this but never mention investments that are made in
western Canada, in particular in British Columbia and Alberta.
They never mention $9 million to Paprican, never. They never
mention the benefits that the oil industry is receiving in Alberta
that will create 40,000 permanent jobs. They concentrate only on
Quebec.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to refer the hon. secretary to the fresh start book. He will
see that precisely what we are going to do is eliminate grants and
subsidies and do away with regional granting agencies.
Let me give the spokesperson for the Prime Minister some facts.
Once Canadians have paid the interest on the so-called loan to
Bombardier, the cost will be about $150 million, not $87 million. It
is estimated that 1,000 jobs will be created on this, $150,000 per
job. If the money had been left to the taxpayer, some 5,000 jobs
could have been created.
How does the spokesperson for the Prime Minister explain that
to the jobless people of Canada?
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting again that Reformers
concentrate on this matter when we have a company that is a world
class manufacturer of airplanes. They concentrate on matters like
this.
The hon. member mentioned elimination of grants in their
programs. They talk about the elimination of regional agencies as
well. They would eliminate all the work that has been created in
areas such as western Canada by organizations like western
diversification, Hitachi in Saskatoon and other industries. They are
trying to do that. That is unfair to regions that are developing.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Before the Liberals came to office, the previous government
made major cuts to unemployment insurance. In Montreal, these
cuts amounted to over $800 million over four years. The Liberals,
who were then in opposition, strongly condemned these cuts to
unemployment insurance. Some members who are now ministers
even took part in a 1993 demonstration in Montreal in bitter cold
temperatures.
What did they do after coming to power? Their successive
reforms to unemployment insurance will deprive Quebec of
benefits totalling $900 million this year and $1.2 billion by the year
2001.
Will the Prime Minister admit that his government's past and
future cuts to unemployment insurance will exceed $900 million
this year-I am adding the 1994 reform to the EI reform-and $1.2
billion in 2001?
(1450)
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the last calculation was a little
tricky, but I will try to understand it.
I can assure you that the shift from unemployment to
employment insurance reflects the new economy we referred to
earlier. The hon. member for Mercier should realize that, instead of
the passive measures favoured in the past, by the year
2000-which you mentioned-we will have reinvested $2.7 billion
in active measures so that Canadians can receive the training they
need to join the labour force.
5685
Thanks to this EI reform, an additional 500,000 Canadians will
now be eligible to receive benefits, that is to say, 500,000
Canadians who were not previously covered by unemployment
insurance will now qualify. These people include part time
workers and women from Montreal's east end, which you know
very well, my hon. friend from Mercier.
The Speaker: My colleagues, you must always address the
Chair.
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
unacceptable for the minister to have trouble with his figures, when
this is what he should focus on.
If he is not aware that the successive cuts made in Quebec in
1994, 1995 and 1996 will exceed $900 million this year and
amount to $1.2 billion in 2001, I wonder what he is doing in that
job.
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is important to
set the record straight and look at the facts. In 1994, Quebec
received close to 25 per cent of federal spending in some areas and
accounted for 21 per cent of federal revenues.
Can they not look at the whole picture instead of focusing on one
particular area? It is important to look at our overall policies and
not make judgments based on one particular case. Quebecers
receive a very large share of total federal spending. As far as
employment insurance is concerned, they have not been penalized
any more than other Canadians, quite the contrary. All Canadians
are now participating in an active employment system which
values work. Quebecers, like all Canadians, benefit from a system
that values work and, generally speaking, Quebecers benefit
greatly from federal spending.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
Last fall the government passed Bill C-64 which strengthened
the Employment Equity Act by extending its coverage and giving
the human rights commission a mandate to ensure its compliance.
As it comes into effect today, could the minister advise the House
how this legislation adds to the basic human rights of Canadians?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to inform the hon. member and the
House that Bill C-64, the new Employment Equity Act, does
indeed come into force as of today. This is another red book
promise kept.
Designations have now been finalized following Canada-wide
consultation with groups representing employers, labour and
designated groups.
[Translation]
I am proud of the commitment made by the government with
respect to workplace equity and equality. This commitment starts
today, reinforcing the government's message that every citizen is
welcome in the workplace.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on the scrap heap
of broken red book promises is one about a Liberal government
restoring public confidence and trust in government.
Yet the youth minister, the member for the Western Arctic, has
charged thousands of dollars on government credit cards for
personal expenses and holidays and then signed the forms which
claim that these expenses were incurred on official business.
When the Prime Minister does nothing about things like this,
what message is he sending to Canadians, especially youth whom
this member is supposed to represent? How does this inaction do
anything to restore Canadian confidence and trust in government?
(1455)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
government travel cards, of course, according to Treasury Board
rules, should be used only for expenditures that have to do with
official government business.
Whenever they are used for other purposes, which may happen
in some circumstances, it is clear that all the expenditures not for
official government business must be fully reimbursed.
In the present case there is no doubt that all the personal
expenditures have been fully reimbursed. We consider the matter
closed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
In its red book, the Liberal Party made the following promise,
and I quote: ``To reduce the $4.1 billion consulting and
professional services budget of the federal government by 15 per
cent''. But according to the public accounts for 1995-96, the
Liberal government spent more than $4.4 billion on these services,
or nearly $1 billion more than promised.
5686
Does the Deputy Prime Minister admit that, instead of cutting
$600 million from this budget, she actually increased it by $300
million, thereby breaking another election promise?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
within months of our taking office, it became very clear that the
previous government had left its fiscal house in much worse shape
than we had expected, with the deficit having actually risen to $45
billion.
Under the circumstances, we had no choice but to take much
more drastic measures than those contemplated in the red book
regarding professional services contracts. We immediately realized
that a program review had to be put in place to look not only at
reducing professional services by 15 per cent but also at ways of
realignign many government programs.
By implementing a better idea than the one announced in the red
book, we were able to save not only $1 billion but $9.2 billion.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the red book is full of broken promises on the subject of jobs and
research and development that they will support in Canada.
We have, among these broken promises, the situation in Chalk
River where we have a cyclotron research project in danger of
closing down. We have a situation in Whiteshell Laboratories,
Manitoba in danger of closing down for the same reason, lack of
support from the government.
My question for the Minister of Natural Resources is what are
you doing, what will you do to redeem the Liberal promises-
The Speaker: Colleague, you must address the question through
the chair. Please rephrase the question to me.
Mr. Ringma: The question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of
Natural Resources is what will you do to redeem-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Davenport.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health and it concerns the
modernization of the best management regime in Canada.
Can the Minister of Health indicate to this House when the
legislation amending the Pesticides Products Control Act will be
introduced in the House?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member will be aware that this subject matter is receiving
careful and serious consideration in terms of consultations across
the country.
The purpose of the review of the Pest Management Regulatory
Agency is to provide good and easy access for farmers in this
country who need those pesticides, but also in terms of the
environmental concerns so that Canadians and their health are
protected.
We are in the final stages of our consultations with farming
groups and others. I hope to be in a position to come back to the
House in due course in order to introduce this legislation.
* * *
(1500 )
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, on the eve of
the Liberal convention, something rather sinister and mean is
happening here on Parliament Hill.
The Deputy Prime Minister hails from a steel workers town. She
will be aware that members of the steelworkers on the construction
site on Parliament Hill were paid $7.25 an hour with minimum
benefits. They are now locked out, having been asked to train scabs
to replace them here on Parliament Hill.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Does she feel it is
appropriate that scabs are working here on the front lawn of
Parliament?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the
hon. member that working people in this country should be given
every opportunity to better their situation.
I would also suggest to the hon. member that given his former
colleague, the former premier of Ontario, is responsible for the
labour laws they are currently facing which permit this, perhaps he
should have talked to Bob Rae while he was in office.
* * *
The Speaker: I wish to draw to the attention of members the
presence in the gallery of Mr. Oleksander Kozhushko, Member of
Parliament of Ukraine, head of a delegation of MPs and officials.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would appreciate it if the government House Leader, or
5687
his substitute, could tell us what the government's legislative
agenda will be for the coming week.
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Labour and Deputy
Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, the House will not sit tomorrow because, as is
customary, when a party recognized in the House has a convention,
the House adjourns. We have done so in the past for our colleagues
and we thank our colleagues for returning the favour.
We will come back on Monday to resume the debate on Bill
C-29.
[English]
This will be followed by Bill C-57 on Bell Canada; Bill C-49, the
administrative tribunals legislation; Bill C-47, reproductive
technologies; and Bill C-58, water transportation.
On Tuesday we will begin with Bill C-35, the labour code
amendment on minimum wages, followed by Bill C-34 respecting
farm marketing agencies. We will then pick up the earlier list
where we left off and follow it until it has been completed.
Mr. Zed: I wonder if I might seek the unanimous consent of the
House to revert to presentation of committee reports. The transport
committee has a report to present. I have consulted with the parties
and I believe you will find unanimous consent.
(1505)
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to
revert to Routine Proceedings?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
5687
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport which
deals with issues involving the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
seaway system.
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if I might, with the good graces of the House, also move a
motion regarding travel. I move:
That the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs be
authorized to travel to Nova Scotia to visit Cornwallis Park, CFB Greenwood, MTC
Aldershot and CFB Halifax on November 7 and 8, 1996, and that the necessary staff
do accompany the committee.
Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to consult the parties and
I believe you will find there is unanimous consent.
The Speaker: Does the parliamentary secretary have the
unanimous consent of the House to present the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
5687
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion, of the
amendment and of the amendment to the amendment
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak to the Bloc Quebecois motion which deals with
the economic future of the city of Montreal. As I begin my remarks
it is important to make reference to what was said by hon. members
during the debate before question period.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce pointed, as did
other Liberal members, to separatism as being the source of the
problems in Quebec. He was blaming the separatist movement for
all the economic problems in Quebec. That was the common theme
which I heard from other Liberal members throughout the morning.
On the other hand, the Bloc Quebecois members were pointing
to the federal government and saying that it had not given Montreal
enough support. It had not given Montreal enough goodies,
according to the motion. It says in the motion that Montreal has not
been given an equitable allocation of federal purchases of goods
and services, et cetera.
Suffice it to say that obviously both sides are not right. I would
argue that both sides in this dispute, the federal government
represented by the Liberals, and the province represented by the
Bloc Quebecois, can accept all kinds of responsibility for the
problems in Montreal.
It is no secret that Montreal is not the city it once was. The hon.
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce made reference to that. He lives
there. He pointed out that several years ago Montreal was a vibrant
and growing city, that there were all kinds of entrepreneurs. It was
an international city. Today it still is, but it is certainly a shadow of
the city it once was. Perhaps it is important, while we are having
this debate, to ask what happened between the 1960s and early
1970s and today.
5688
There have been many changes, not the least of which has been
the rise of separatism and a very heavy tax load. There is a
tremendous amount of debt in this country. We have seen an
environment, really not for job creation but quite to the contrary, an
environment that scares off the job creators for two reasons, one of
them economic. The other is political. Obviously in that type of
environment we cannot see a prosperous economy.
(1510)
It is important to lay out some of the facts when we are talking
about the economic problems facing the great city of Montreal. It is
a great city. I think all Canadians would like to see it restored to its
former greatness.
Since the present government came to power it has added
somewhere in the range of $103 billion more in debt on to the
overall debt load in the country. That means average taxpayers owe
on behalf of the federal government about $45,000 right now or
$290 per month of their taxes go just to pay the interest on the debt.
That is $290 per taxpayer. It is an incredible amount of money.
A lot of people will be alarmed to learn, and I am certain this
applies even more so to people in Quebec because of the
traditionally high tax load there, but since the Liberal government
came to power the average family's purchasing power has declined
by $3,000 a year. That is unbelievable. It points to part of the cause
for the economic woes in Montreal.
Since the government has come to power its tax revenues have
rocketed upward by $23 billion more by the end of its four year
mandate than when it came to power. That is a tremendous amount
of money, a huge increase in its overall revenues.
When we reflect back on the promises of the last campaign,
where the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the
current finance minister were running around saying there would
be jobs, jobs, jobs, all of the facts known today make that promise
sound very empty and very hollow.
I will recount some of the facts on unemployment. As members
of the Bloc Quebecois know, as do many members of the Liberal
Party who are members from the Montreal region, Montreal has
been hit perhaps harder than almost any major city in the country
with respect to unemployment. However, it truly is a nationwide
problem. Today 1.4 million people are unemployed.
It is interesting to look back over the history of the last quarter
century to see how the rise in unemployment has paralleled the rise
in indebtedness in this country. When former Prime Minister
Trudeau was beginning his spending spree back in 1972 about half
a million people were unemployed, 535,000 people if my memory
serves me right. Ever since then unemployment has been on the
rise. It virtually mirrors the rise in indebtedness in the country.
At that point the debt was somewhere in the range of $13 billion.
Today it is $600 billion. Approximately 500,000 people were
unemployed. Today it is 1.4 million. It did not matter what political
party was in power. When the Liberals were in government,
unemployment was bad and getting worse. When the Tories took
over they even made it worse. It was up to 1.6 million people by the
time they had their way with the economy. They added another
$300 billion in debt. Obviously they did not do a very good job
either.
Today there are 1.4 million unemployed people across the
country, not to mention the two million to three million under
employed. When we speak of under employed it is important that
we define our terms. We are speaking of people who are in
positions that really are beneath the skills they have spent a lot a
money to acquire. All kinds of people are working in low wage jobs
when they have been trained to be in jobs that are far more worthy
of their abilities.
This blocks people who are unskilled from getting some of the
wages where skills really are not as required. The people whom
that really hurts are the youth. That is why we have 18 per cent
youth unemployment in Canada today.
(1515 )
On the eve of the Liberal convention, when a lot of young
Liberals will be coming to town, I hope they are asking some tough
questions of their own government about why youth
unemployment continues to be as high as it is today.
However, that is not the whole job story. We have about another
500,000 to 1 million people who have fallen through the cracks,
people who are no longer reported in the unemployment statistics
because they have given up looking for work. We also have one in
four Canadians who are very concerned about their future. They do
not know if their job is going to be there tomorrow.
I think I can say this is a fact, and I know hon. members in the
Bloc Quebecois and members from all sides who come from
Quebec will acknowledge that in Quebec the unemployment
situation is certainly more pronounced than just about anywhere
else with the exception of Atlantic Canada.
I have laid out a pretty bleak situation. It sounds pretty bad and it
certainly is. However, that does not mean that we cannot somehow
get out of this terrible mess.
The Reform Party has recently laid out its platform for helping
not only the people of Quebec and Montreal, but people from all
across the country. We believe that Canada needs to be defined by
its citizens, not by its government. The debate over the last couple
of days really makes the point. We have had all kinds of
accusations flying back and forth in the House in the last couple of
days because Bloc members say that we do not give enough money
to Quebec and specifically to Montreal. Meanwhile, the
government
5689
is saying it gives lots. It just gave $87 million to Bombardier in
Montreal. However, clearly that has not solved the situation.
Governments giving money to big companies, corporate welfare,
does not work. It does not work when we flood one province with a
whole bunch of money. That clearly has not helped Quebecers.
Instead of that why do we not go back and do it the way that we
used to, the way that created all those jobs back in the 1960s and
1970s that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce was talking
when he was bragging about the Montreal of old. When we talk
about that we are talking creating an environment where all the job
producers have the incentive to go out there and create jobs.
How do we get there from where we are at today with a $600
billion debt, a deficit of $28 billion, record high taxes and falling
disposable income? Obviously the solutions are not easy. However,
the Reform Party thinks it does have the solution. We believe we
have a good plan. We say that the first thing we have to do is make
the government smaller. We have laid out a plan whereby we would
cut spending by $15 billion and we would have a $94 billion federal
government, a smaller federal government that is not in the face of
Canadians at every level, that is not in the face of the people of
Quebec who have said over and over again that they do not want all
this intrusion from the federal government. We are happy to help
make that happen.
Not only that, we want a federal government that will do 10 jobs
well in areas like criminal justice; knocking down internal trade
barriers instead of building them up like it has done with the
harmonization deal; defence, which obviously needs a lot more
attention from the government than it is currently getting because it
is truly a mess, certainly at the higher echelons. We would also like
the federal government to pay more attention to foreign affairs and
international trade and do 10 things well instead of trying to do 25
things and obviously doing them very poorly.
What we would like to see is a tax freedom day that falls in April
instead of one that falls in June, July or August. People are taxed to
the max. They can barely move. It puts a tremendous stress not
only on the job creators out there but all those people who are
struggling to make a living and those families that have both
parents working even sometimes when they do not necessarily
want to have both parents working, which creates tremendous
stress in families. What we want is 5 per cent unemployment, not
10 per cent, not 12 per cent, not 18 per cent like we have for young
people today. We want 5 per cent unemployment like we have
south of the border. Somehow the Americans are able to have low
unemployment. Certainly we should be able to have the same level
of unemployment. We used to have it in this country.
(1520 )
When I speak of creating jobs through smaller government and
lower taxes, I will talk about some specific ways we can do that.
The first priority is to balance the budget. Hon. members across the
way, who may not have had a chance to read our document, have
made the accusation that we want to go ahead and start cutting
taxes and not balance the budget first.
I assure my friends across the way that is not the case. We
believe that would be very irresponsible, particularly when we are
in such a precarious position with a debt of $600 billion. So we say
let us balance the budget first. We would do that by reducing
government spending by about $15 billion. We would run a very
lean and efficient $94 billion government.
We would balance that budget by March 31, 1999. We would
launch a debt retirement program. We would have balanced budget
legislation. We would have free trade between provinces and of
course we would have much lower taxes than we have today. The
short answer to people who want to know how much tax relief they
would get would be $2,000 for the average Canadian family by the
year 2000. We propose a number of ways to make that happen.
We would like to increase the basic personal exemption from
$6,456 to $7,900. We would also like to increase the spousal
amount from $5,380 to $7,900. Those two measures alone will
obviously affect every person who files a tax form if their basic
personal exemption were to go up. It will obviously affect every
married couple in the country to give them much lower taxes than
they face today.
We speak in favour of extending the $3,000 to $5,000 child care
deduction to all parents, not just people who send their children out
to day care, even to people who look after their children at home.
We think they are just as valuable when it comes to providing
parenting. It is time in this country that we acknowledge the great
job that parents do in raising their children by extending the child
care deduction to all parents. That makes sense to me. It is treating
people equally.
We believe that we must eliminate the 3 per cent and 5 per cent
Conservative surtaxes. The Tories were great ones for raising taxes.
Time after time they raised taxes and they spent more and more.
We have to begin to repeal some of that.
We believe that we have to cut UI premiums by 28 per cent and
we have to cut capital gains tax in half. If we could cut UI
premiums, it would provide an immediate stimulus for job creation
in this country.
Here is where we get back to Montreal. Many people on both
sides of the House have been talking about the lack of jobs in
Montreal, and it is truly a national disgrace. I do not know how else
to word it. Back in the early seventies we had unemployment rates
of 4 per cent and 5 per cent in Canada. Now it is rocketing upward
well into the double digits in Montreal, well into the double digits
in Atlantic Canada, well into the double digits in the entire country,
especially for youth.
5690
We have a tremendous unemployment problem in this country.
There is barely an economist in Canada who has not pointed to the
high UI premiums as one of the principle reasons for high
unemployment rates. Surely the hon. finance minister and
members across the way can see this is an impediment to job
creation.
We have to give people some incentive to create jobs. One of the
best ways is to balance the budget and then to bring down
immediate reductions in unemployment insurance premiums.
We speak about cutting capital gains taxes in half. We have a
private sector that is dying to invest in the Canadian economy. If
we cut the inclusion rate in half for capital gains, we will have all
kinds of capital flooding into the country. There will be all kinds of
people who want to invest in Canadian business and create the
types of jobs that people in Montreal and people everywhere need.
On the one hand, the finance minister says ``hey, we don't need
tax cuts, don't worry about it, interest rates will do the job''.
(1525)
Obviously the finance minister and the Prime Minister do not
believe their own story or they would not be granting Bombardier
$85 million plus in the form of an interest free loan. They just
finished saying that low interest rates will spur that kind of
investment on their own. Obviously they do not believe their own
story.
The difference between the Reform Party and the old
Liberal-Tory Parties has become fairly clear. The old parties
believe in bigger government, higher taxes, that government
should tell you how to raise and discipline your children. They will
be in your face at every turn. They have proven when they do that
they have ruined just about everything they have touched.
On the other hand, the Reform Party presents a new vision, a
fresh start, as we say. Reform believe that government should be
smaller. Canadians should be given the tools to do more of the
providing for themselves instead of taking their money and
funnelling it through a big, fat inefficient government and then
having that government tell them what they are going to do with the
money. Why not let people keep that money? Why not let
Canadians keep the money themselves? Why do we keep taking the
money away and putting tremendous strain on individuals and
families across the country? This is hugely punitive to all the
people who create the jobs, the people to whom the government
should be accountable.
In conclusion, I urge the government to drop its stand against tax
relief for Canadians, to drop its line that low interest rates are good
enough when clearly it does not believe it itself. Clearly it has
failed at every step when it has to hand out big grants to its friends
in Montreal. Obviously it does not believe its own story. Obviously
it does not believe it is working.
I encourage hon. members across the way and people in the Bloc
Quebecois to quit pointing fingers at each other and look at how
their own programs are hurting the economy in Montreal and right
across the country. Look at the Reform approach of giving
Canadians the tools in the form of lower taxes to begin to look after
themselves and to create jobs in the Canadian economy.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened attentively to the hon. member from the Reform Party
participating in this debate. Reform's solution to help the sagging
economy in Montreal is to cut even more.
Reform is going to cut $15 billion if it ever forms a government.
This would mean smaller transfer payments to the provinces. He
talked about free trade with the provinces and I agree with him on
that. How will he or his party achieve free trade with Quebec when
every day, every week in this House the Reform Party does nothing
but Quebec bashing? Then the Reform is going to sit down with it
and negotiate free trade. Good luck. I would like to know how it
plans to do that.
Reform is going to operate with a smaller government. Mr.
Speaker, I am sure your constituents and mine are complaining now
that we have cut government too far. There are people who want to
have questions answered from Revenue Canada and from
immigration. We have already, through our program review, cut the
public service by 45,000 and probably another 10,000. The public
service has been cut to the bone now. Reform wants to cut not to the
bone but into the bone. It claims it is listening to grassroots
Canadians. So am I and grassroots Canadians are saying do not cut
anymore. They want the public service to serve them when they
need it.
(1530 )
My intervention is more of a comment, but I would like the
member to answer some of these questions. On the one hand
Reform members continually bash Quebec. Of course Montreal is
the capital city and the hub of the province and the country.
I think Reform fails to recognize that cities like Montreal,
Vancouver and Toronto are still rated by objective international
pollsters as the three best cities in the world next to Paris and
London. If we compare Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto with
U.S. cities, Boston will place third, whereas Montreal will still
place in the top ten.
5691
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, I am certain the hon. member did
not mean to say that Montreal was the capital city of Quebec; I
think he meant Quebec City.
One thing I want to point out to the hon. member is that it was
the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who pointed out that
Montreal is not the city it used to be.
The hon. member has to acknowledge that over the last 25 years
Liberal governments have been in power in this country, with the
exception of the horrendous Tory government. It did almost as
much damage as the Liberal governments have done over the many
years they have been around.
The member talked about cuts in services and cuts to staffing in
the revenue and immigration departments. I do not hear complaints
about those cuts nearly as much as I hear complaints about cuts to
health care.
Government members campaigned as being the saviours of
medicare. Then they turned around and cut $7 billion out of
transfers to the provinces, over $3 billion of which went to health
care. I sat before the finance committee today and heard all kinds
of health care professionals pound on the desk very forthrightly
because they are so frustrated. They know that on the one hand the
federal government is saying that it is the saviour of health care and
do not dare try and break the Canada Health Act. Then the Liberals
turn around and cut every cent they can out of it and tell people to
go and do what they can. That is blatant hypocrisy.
People from Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Manitoba who
protest in front of legislatures about cuts to hospital funding should
get on a plane and come and protest on the lawn of the House of
Commons because this where the problem began. There is the
duplicity of the government which on the one hand says it is the
saviour of health care and on the other hand cuts the heart out of it.
On the question of how we would deal with Quebec, the member
is absolutely wrong when he says that we bash Quebec every day.
That is completely false. We are very, very upset about the
Bombardier deal. However we are the ones who propose to give
Quebecers the tools in the form of lower taxes. One-quarter of all
taxpayers in the country come from Quebec. We are going to give
three million people in Quebec lower taxes. A tremendous amount
of stimulus will go into the economy of Quebec, $2,000 per family
by the year 2000 in the province of Quebec. They will create a
tremendous amount of their own jobs.
I am sure the member has said when he is speaking to his
constituents that small business creates jobs in this country. Then
let us give the people who create the jobs the tools to create them.
On the political side, we say let us give the people of Quebec and
the Government of Quebec the tools they need to chart the future of
Quebec. The people of Quebec do have a unique language, a
unique culture and a unique history. Let us give them the tools and
give them the jurisdiction to determine the future of the people of
Quebec. That would go over well if every province had to do that.
That is how we are going to deal with the people of Quebec and
the Quebec government.
[Translation]
The Speaker: We have only about 60 seconds left. The hon.
member for Bourassa has 30 seconds.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I also think
if there is a political party in Canada which is particularly
anti-Quebec, it is the Reform Party.
(1535)
How can you explain that over the last year, so many Albertans
have come in Montreal to tell people in Quebec they care for them
and want them as part of Canada, when your attitude is so totally
anti-Quebec?
[English]
Mr. Solberg: Mr. Speaker, it was a rather incoherent question
but I can guarantee that the people of Alberta do want to see
Quebecers stay in this country. The best way to show that is for the
federal government to create an environment for economic growth
on the one hand, and on the other hand provide a decentralized
Canada that will allow Quebecers and all Canadians to realize their
aspirations within the broad framework of what constitutes
Canada.
[Translation]
Hon. Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the
floor to address the issue of the future of Montreal, an issue that is
so very close to my heart.
Today's opposition motion will allow us to give the public the
facts, which have been totally misrepresented. I am extremely
pleased to rise on this issue, since, as you know, I got into politics
earlier this year, in January 1996, because, among other reasons, I
was dismayed by the situation Montreal was in. I thought that the
only way to boost Montreal's economy was to ensure that Canada
is a vibrant country, with a modern and flexible federalism that
would allow Montreal to work well. That is the underlying reason
of my commitment, and that is why I rise in the House today as the
member of Parliament for Papineau-Saint-Michel, representing
eastern Montreal, the Montreal that is having a rough time, the
Montreal that concerns us so much.
Of course, the Prime Minister had absolutely no difficulty
recognizing earlier this week that Montreal is the economic
mainspring of Quebec. Montreal has always been, is, and will
always remain the economic and cultural mainspring of Quebec
5692
society. Besides, members opposite are among those who have
been insisting for years on considering Montreal merely a region
like any other, always reminding Montreal that it is only one region
among others, whereas we have always recognized its role as an
economic mainspring. So, the first words of the motion reflect the
bad faith of opposition members who would have us believe they
themselves do not recognize Montreal as the economic mainspring
of Quebec.
Moreover, in the speech he made last Tuesday, the Prime
Minister of Canada went so far as to say that Montreal is not only
the economic mainspring of Quebec, but one of the economic
engines of Canada. When the Montreal economy is in dire straits,
as it is right now, the Canadian economy as a whole is in trouble.
Millions of Canadian citizens feel attached to Montreal. Millions
of Canadian citizens feel some kind of attachment for Montreal,
which I appreciate and find very encouraging, because when we
talk about Montreal in cabinet or in caucus, I can always tell that
the government members have a lot of sympathy for Montreal.
Canadians love the city of Montreal. They recognize that Montreal
is crucial both to the Quebec society and to the future of Canada. I
think it is extremely important to recognize this.
Here is what struck me these last few days. I am quite new to
politics and I may be rather naive but I am stunned to see that,
although the Prime Minister of Canada made an important speech
in front of the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, last Tuesday,
holding out his hand to the Quebec government, the private sector,
the community sector, the co-operative sectors, the municipal
governments in Montreal and the vicinity in a speech which was
meant to be constructive and unifying, his speech was met
yesterday and today in question period with anger and attempts to
revive old illusions that are completely out of date in a modern
Quebec. And I say to the members opposite: this is 1996, please
bring yourselves up to date and forget last century's divisions, and
decisions that were, in some cases, made at the turn of the century
and which they are trying to update with an anti-Quebec twist. This
is pure nonsense.
(1540)
What I can say is that we, in the Government of Canada, are
totally pro-Montreal. The Prime Minister, the head of our
government, made a speech the Quebec government did not
ridicule fortunately. The Governement of Quebec welcomed the
Prime Minister's speech because we want to transform Montreal
into a job site with a strong job potential for the years to come.
What did we have since then? Not a word on the openness shown
by the Prime Minister, not a word on the pro-Montreal and
pro-Quebec constructive approach he took by inviting all
stakeholders of the private sector and community groups. I was
shocked by this absolutely mean attitude. What I am afraid of is
that they are not interested in Montreal's well-being, but, on the
contrary, in a return to the old divisions.
In my office, this morning, I was listening with only half an ear
to the hon. member for Rosemont, who was reminding us of the old
rivalries when Montreal was an anglophone city, when the
anglophones exploited the poor French Canadians who suffered so
much. They are constantly trying to bring us back to the past, to
situations which, for the most part, are no longer true in modern
Quebec.
The only way for Montreal to regain its place in the sun, to
become a prominent economic pole again is to stop reviving the old
hatreds and divisions. Really, the only vision that comes from the
opposition, from the Bloc which calls itself Quebecois-but which,
I have more and more the impression, should be called
anti-Quebecois-is a vision of division. A vision of division, of
constant division between people.
They try to divide us when we know that we can accomplish so
much more by staying together. They disappoint me because this is
not what Montreal needs right now. What Montreal needs is that we
all work together: the Government of Canada, the government of
Quebec, the private sector, the labour unions and the community
sector. This is what we want and the hon. members opposite have
nothing to offer except division, they did nothing to make any true
commitment or to create a collective commitment.
Fortunately, they do not reflect the reaction of Quebec's premier
to the great speech made by the Prime Minister of Canada, who
made all Canadians aware of the needs of Montreal.
Do Quebecers get their fair share in Canada? For the past 130
years, Quebecers have chosen Canada every time they were asked,
even when all kinds of gimmicks were used to make them say what
they did not mean. Why is that? Because, in the end, Quebecers
know very well that they get their fair share in Canada. We must
see Canada as a land of freedom, individual growth, respect and
tolerance. This is a lot more interesting than the divisions and
racial hatred that some people would like to impose on us by
constantly referring to the old myths of the past when Montreal was
an English-speaking city.
I cannot believe that I am still hearing today, in 1996, the things I
heard this morning. I sincerely hope people will realize that
Quebec's society includes all the people, whatever their language
or their ethnic origin. This is the only Montreal that can reclaim its
place under the sun. This is the Montreal we need, the Montreal
that must shine.
The Government of Canada, under the leadership of the Prime
Minister, has taken a structuring approach where various federal
5693
departments have their own line of action. These lines of action are
very interesting and reflect our government's agenda.
We want to promote the development of the science and
technology sector, which is absolutely essential in the new
knowledge-based economy towards which we are moving. We are
doing all we can in the area of international development. Most
jobs that are created today are related to international trade. Our
country is open to international trade and that is extremely
important.
Our third line of action within our structuring approach is small
business development.
(1545)
The development of the cultural and tourism industries will also
be extremely important, as well as local economic and social
development, which is my responsibility as Canada's Minister of
Human Resources Development.
A few moments ago, the member for Mercier was trying to tell
me again that the poor Quebecers did not get their fair share in the
new employment insurance program, that our reform was not fair
to Quebecers, when in fact local economic and social development
is our main concern. The main purpose of our employment
insurance reform is precisely to help the most vulnerable people in
our society re-enter the workforce by investing much more money
than we did before under the unemployment insurance program to
give them access to the training that will allow them to re-enter the
workforce.
Do Quebecers not get their fair share? If you look at the figures,
in 1995, Quebecers received 45 per cent of employment insurance
transfers, or $4.7 billion, which is $1.2 billion more than the $3.5
billion they contributed.
And in how many other areas is this true? We do not even want to
get into this kind of highly divisive propaganda at a time when the
Prime Minister is extending his hand to try to rebuild Montreal, and
all we are hearing is insults, to the point where it was insinuated
that the Prime Minister was shedding crocodile tears because he
said he was sorry about the state of Montreal's economy. Where are
these people coming from?
This reminds me of August or September when Quebec's finance
minister, Mr. Landry, thought we were not taking statistics
seriously. He even mentioned me specifically, the minister
standing before you, who has spent his life working for the
development of Montreal's economy, of its business community,
helping it to take its first steps in international markets, as an
international management consultant.
This is nothing more than old style political fighting. Its
approach is to attack people's motivation, trying to play on our
prejudices, and we are not having any of it.
We think that this narrow partisan discourse, which is unable to
rise to the challenge of actually building a society, will get what it
deserves from Quebecers in due course.
When I hear the name Bloc Quebecois, I can assure you of one
thing, and all Canadians must know this, and that is that Quebecers
are far above this divisive mentality, that they are people with a
different ideal, a much more elevated community and economic
ideal.
I think it important to reassure the Canadian people at this time
that the Bloc Quebecois represents a certain part of the population
and that we will see a sharp decline in its numbers over the coming
years. In any event, Quebec's share of federal research and
development spending, which is often mentioned, and I have no
choice but to speak about it, because of all the figures that have
been given, has gone from 14 per cent in 1979 to 24 per cent in
1994-95.
In 1994-95, Quebec received close to 23 per cent of the funds
available for research and development from the Department of
National Defence. In 1992-93, Quebec businesses received 33 per
cent of grants and 33 per cent of federal research and development
contracts. In 1992-93, Quebec universities received 26 per cent of
federal research and development grants to Canadian universities.
Early this week, the Prime Minister announced an $87 million
investment in Bombardier as part of a technology partnership.
What did I hear this morning? I heard people saying: ``We do not
need grants, what we want is action and policies''.
They want words, political decisions. They have asked us for
policies and told us they do not want grants.
(1550)
We give them the focus of our developmental policy, we show
them Team Canada proudly carrying the products of Quebecers and
other Canadians into the international markets. We show them a
Prime Minister of Canada, who has taken those products all over
the world, which they have always opposed because they do not
want international development, they do not want to be part of
Team Canada, despite the great business success these
undertakings have enjoyed so far.
Just since the time I became a member of this House, a mere
seven months ago, I have seen how many Montreal businesses have
received the funding they over there claim they want nothing of.
Since this morning I have heard nothing but ``We do not want
grants, we want policies''.
I can tell you, however, that what Quebecers want is more than
words, more than political slogans. What they want is economic
action. They want partnerships based on returnable contributions,
for that is where business is at these days. Such was the case early
this week with Bombardier, with $87 million in repayable funds,
5694
because we are sharing the technological risk involved, but we
have confidence.
How much has the Canadian government invested in
Bombardier, which is in the process of moving up from the
sixth-ranking aerospace company in the world to the fourth? We
are, of course, delighted with this loan, and I am looking at the list
of companies, ones like Bell Helicopter, Delisle Foods, Galderma,
businesses in which we have invested jointly with the Government
of Quebec. It cannot be such a bad thing as that, if Quebec was also
involved. Why tell us they want no subsidies, when extremely
important investments are exactly what is bringing about the
restructuring of Montreal?
I can tell you that what we need at this time is unity and union.
We need to unite all of our strengths in order to find the strength
Montreal needs. I am speaking of the east, I am speaking of the
pro-east group, in which we invested as a government, in the local
community. Those people are doing an absolutely remarkable job.
We, the Government of Canada, are there one hundred per cent,
attuned to the needs of the people of the Montreal region.
But the Government of Canada is proposing tangible actions,
useful actions in order to make Montreal become a great city in
Quebec and in Canada. We want to help Montreal to be a great
North American metropolis.
We will continue to act in the most structured possible way, with
employment as a priority. Employment remains our governments's
priority. We have put some order in our fiscal house and we are
extremely proud of this achievement. We have transformed
employment insurance into a very modern system, which takes into
account the reality of the new economy and covers 500,000 more
Canadians, many of whom are women from the eastern part of
Montreal, who had part time jobs.
This government intends to continue to improve economic
growth, employment and the new economy and to work for the
young people. I am proud to see that there are some healthy
economic sectors in Montreal. A part of Montreal may be in a
tough situation but there is also another part of it which is
economically well. I know the people on the other side rarely talk
about that successful Montreal because it rarely is on their political
side.
Indeed, the successful Montreal is not on their side because it is
made of people who have confidence in themselves. They are not
people who are mean and suspicious, who are afraid of their
neighbours and who refuse to share their sovereignty with them.
The successful Montreal is the Montreal of aeronautics,
biotechnology, pharmaceutical industry, telecommunications,
information technologies and multimedia. It is this Montreal the
Canadian government stood by and has helped in priority for many
years. Montreal, the Montreal that is doing so well, politically
supports our approach.
That is why they do not want to talk about the Montreal that is
thriving, because it happens to reject this option of suspicion and
fear that the neighbours may have done something. That is not our
approach. We are faced with the tremendous challenge of helping
the other Montreal which is having trouble adjusting to the new
economy.
We are there. We now have an investment climate with the
lowest interest rates we have known in 38 years. Now that is an
extraordinary achievement. Our opposition friends should show the
same respect we showed the Government of Quebec and the mayor
of Montreal, Mayor Bourque, who was very pleased with the Prime
Minister's speech.
(1555)
If, after the offer made at the beginning of this week, they had
the decency to say well, we will have to do better than we have so
far because there is still a part of Montreal that is in trouble, if they
did, we would be able to do something, because we would all be
working together.
There will be a summit meeting in Quebec on the weekend, an
important one. We will be watching it very closely. I also want to
wish all participants in this summit the best of luck, so that by the
end of the month, when the summit takes place, we will have some
tangible results. We are going to look at these results, and I can tell
you right now the Government of Canada will be there. It intends to
meet its commitments, and we will be glad to continue to help the
people of Montreal.
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, to say that Montreal is
not in such bad shape, I agree. It has its problems, but it is not in
such bad shape. But to say that Montreal is in a good shape,
referring to the action of the federal government these last twenty
years, I think that the speech the Prime Minister made in Montreal
this week does not reflect the reality. I will not go so far to say that
such a speech is pure hypocrisy.
If Montreal is in a somewhat better shape now, it is certainly not
thanks to the federal government. Let us look, for instance, at what
the present Prime Minister did when he was Minister of Energy,
Mines and Resources. He cut part of Montreal's oil supplies. What
did the Prime Minister do? What did the federal government do in
respect to inflation and the extraordinary interest rates of 20 per
cent in 1981-1982 for example? I think such a situation rapidly
ruins a city.
What did the federal government do recently when it shut down
the Atomic Energy Commission of Canada in Montreal? What did
the federal government do when it shut down the Tokamak research
centre in Varennes? What is the government doing? The federal
5695
government is doing everything possible to harm the economic
development of Montreal, and we have lots of evidence.
Therefore, when the Minister comes and tells us that the Prime
Minister made an extraordinary speech-yes, the Prime Minister
said extraordinary things such as ``We are targeting our
investments so that we can help Montreal become a leader in the
emerging technologies of tomorrow'', I say: What hypocrisy! What
a hypocritical speech!
The Speaker: My colleagues, I ask you not to use the words
``hypocrisy'' and ``hypocrite'', because it could trigger unwanted
reactions, here, in the House.
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the
minister was a hypocrite. I said that his speech was hypocritical.
That is different.
I wanted to say that we, Montrealers, know the minister's
rhetoric has very little impact. He spoke about the federal
government's contribution in research and development contracts,
but in all, they amount to 18.5 per cent. He mentioned National
Defence. He mentioned areas where the investment was higher
than the Quebec average, but still, the average is 18.5 per cent. This
is figure provided by Statistics Canada, and it means at least a $2
billion shortfall in research and development. He says his
department also gives $1.2 billion to the unemployed. Do the
Quebecers, the Montrealers, want to be supported on welfare and
unemployment premiums? We want to earn a decent living, as any
other living body in North America.
That being said, I think the present minister should withdraw his
statement and tell the truth, for once.
(1600)
He must tell the truth, because 18.5 per cent while we represent
24 per cent of the population means we got $2 billion less than
what we should have had for research and development. These
figures are from Statistics Canada.
Ontario receives 53 per cent of the federal research and
development envelope while Quebec has 18.5 per cent-and the
minister is perfectly aware of it.
Mr. Pettigrew: It is 24 per cent.
Mr. LeBlanc (Longueuil): Why does he say such things in the
House? Why not try to say the truth to Quebecers and Montrealers?
Why not the truth? I do no know. I think he is taking up the same
speech his leader delivered in Montreal this week. He probably
prepared half of it himself. It is more or less the same speech that
was given by the Prime Minister in Montreal, this week, and parts
of it are simply not true.
That is why we are here as representatives of Quebec in Ottawa,
and we want Quebecers to know the truth about what the federal
government does to help Montreal. The worst thing is that this
government is the one that most hindered Montreal's development
in the past, and it is still doing so today.
Mr. Pettigrew: Mr. Speaker, the member for Longueuil is stuck
on inflation rates of 14 or 15 per cent. Those were times I hardly
knew. In those days, I was probably not even in the labour force, I
have been working for only 25 years.
It is incredible how the problems of Montreal are being blamed
on the inflation in the early eighties, at a time when we all know
that governments had a different philosophy on the issue. The same
was true of the Quebec government to which you were very close
then, in 1980-81.
We should focus our debate on the Montreal of today, not the
Montreal the member for Rosemont talked about, when it was
mostly English speaking and seemed to be mean to us, not the
Montreal of the late seventies when the inflation was sky high. I
will point out that the inflation was the same in Toronto and the rest
of Canada. It would appear that Montreal was affected in a different
way. So here are a few things that are true. It was certainly not
because of an anti-Quebec approach that inflation rates were so
high, as a matter of fact, they were too high for Canadians as a
whole.
These people should be reminded that for the past three years the
inflation rate has been below 2 per cent; right now it is around 1.3
or 1.4 per cent. It is extraordinary to have been able to wrestle the
inflation to the ground as we have done under the current Liberal
government headed by the current Prime Minister, whom I cannot
call by name in this House, although I nearly did, the member for
Shawinigan.
Also, our interest rates are the lowest they have been in 38 years.
You want to talk about the past? You are right, Mr. Speaker. I must
address my remarks to the Chair. I want to point out that interest
rates are the lowest they have been in 38 years. So those who cling
to the past should also mention that.
I am more interested in the future, in the society we are building
now. They speak about research and development spending.
Quebec's part in federal spending for research and development
has reached more than 25 per cent this year. We have made
considerable progress.
But the interesting part are the tangible results of research and
development. This is the area where we have progressed and where
we are improving the situation. In the aerospace sector alone, the
government will invest $2.3 billion over a ten-year period in
Montreal. Those are structuring investments, considerably more
important than what we have seen until now.
Then there are aeronautics, biotechnologies and the
pharmaceutical industry. People keep asking: ``When will you
change the legislation?'' Right now the legislation discriminates in
favour of
5696
the pharmaceutical industry in the greater Montreal. You are either
in the past, or in an hypothetical future. We must remind these
people that they should put an end to their qualms and their fears.
We are trying to build a society and that can only be done on the
basis of trust and confidence.
There were two major books written on economic development
last year. I should send a copy to members of the opposition; they
would be happy to see that Mr. Fukuyama, a very interesting
Japanese-American sociologist, wrote a book in which he says that
the societies which will perform the best in a global economy will
be those where confidence prevails.
(1605)
The title of his book is Trust. We must have confidence, we must
stop being wary of what we see on the other side. Alain Peyrefitte
said the same thing. He studied 400 years of economic
development to see which societies performed. It was always the
societies where there was confidence, the societies which-instead
of turning against their Prime Minister, who is from Quebec,
against a Prime Minister born in Quebec, the hon. member for
Shawinigan who, faced with an urgent situation in Montreal,
extended a hand to the Premier of Quebec-the societies which
were united. For three days now he has been under attack.
Everything he has done is being questioned.
You were right a while ago when you intervened to stop the use
of the adjective, the use of the word hypocrite. Insult is the weapon
of the weak, the weapon of those who have nothing to say. I will
end on that. The situation is very serious in Montreal and we must
unite, we must stop fighting each other and work together: the
Government of Canada, the Government of Quebec, the municipal
government, the private sector and the community. This is what we
want and this is what we will do.
I would like to ask the opposition to stop slowing us down.
Indeed, what they are trying to do, faced with the initiative taken by
the Prime Minister of Canada at the beginning of the week, faced
with this very constructive and positive speech, is slow down
government action because it scares them.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to speak to the Bloc Quebecois motion asking the House to
recognize Montreal as the economic mainspring of Quebec society.
This motion also asks the House to condemn the federal
government's lack of concrete initiatives in really supporting the
Montreal area economy, particularly in the transportation sector.
During the last election campaign, the Liberals had promised in
their red book to give back to Montreal a strong voice within the
Canadian government, to favour community groups, to support
small and medium business, which constitutes the essence of
Montreal's economic fabric, to revitalize housing through a
renovation program, and to maximize, in the greater Montreal area,
the spinoffs of the research and development program.
Beyond these fine promises, the federal government is doing
nothing to help with the economic recovery of Montreal. In the
transportation sector, many issues demonstrate the federal
government's bad faith. In the last 15 years, 15,000 jobs have been
lost in the railway industry in Montreal, which is more than half of
the work force in this sector.
The federal government did everything it could to favour rail
transportation in the west, at the expense of Quebec, and
particularly Montreal, which used to be the main railway centre in
the country. Ottawa massively invested in infrastructure in western
Canada, while supporting grain transportation to the tune of
hundreds of millions of dollars. Meanwhile, it let the Quebec
network deteriorate and thus become obsolete.
In the air transportation sector, Ottawa's decisions also had
devastating effects on employment in Montreal. In July, the federal
government announced it was withdrawing from Air Canada its
Czech Republic destination, to the benefit of Canadian
International. This decision is further evidence of favouritism
toward this company.
In this regard, I must add that, for many years, Ottawa has been
postponing the entry of Air Canada in the Asian market and is
trying to restrain its access. It then becomes realistic to think that,
if the government chooses to put forward policies that put Air
Canada at a disadvantage, it is in fact because it wants to penalize it
for maintaining its head office in Montreal instead of Toronto.
It is important to mention that Air Canada is currently one of the
largest employers in Quebec, with some 7,000 employees.
However, we have to wonder why an Air Canada centre is already
being built in Toronto and what the consequences will be for
Montreal.
(1610)
The handling of the Dorval and Mirabel airports issue is another
example of the kind of mismanagement experienced in air
transportation in Quebec over the past two decades. Having two
airports has greatly hindered Montreal's competitiveness vis-à-vis
the northeastern states. In addition, the decision the federal
government made in 1986 to allow air carriers departing from
Europe to transit through other Canadian airports sounded the end
of Montreal as a major hub. As a result, three times more
passengers are now going through Pearson Airport in Toronto than
through Dorval and Mirabel together.
I would now like to address briefly the difficult situation in my
riding of Bourassa, which includes the 86,000 residents of
Montréal-Nord. Starting in January 1997, the riding will also
include approximately 10,000 residents of Rivière-des-Prairies.
5697
The population of Montréal-Nord is becoming increasingly
cosmopolitan, with the majority, or 38 per cent, coming from Italy
or Haiti. The Latin American, Middle-Eastern and
Southeast-Asian components are also growing.
The unemployment rate in the adult population of
Montréal-Nord is higher than the average rate for the island of
Montreal, at 16 per cent versus 12 per cent. In the 15-24 age group,
the rate is higher there than elsewhere, at 20.3 per cent versus 16
per cent. Of the total population of Montréal-Nord, 18.8 per cent
rely on income security benefits, as compared to 10.7 per cent in
Quebec. Those relying on welfare are mainly people living alone,
single mothers, children, immigrants and young people.
Many of my constituents are living in poverty. They often come
to my office to ask me to do something. As hard as I try, I
sometimes feel torn and helpless, unable to meet their urgent needs
for jobs, housing, and even food.
The Papineau employment center is slated for closure at the
beginning of 1997. The minister who was praising earlier all the
great things achieved by Montreal is responsible for this center. At
the same time, this government is cutting back on grants to those
organizations responsible for developing job readiness programs.
The federal government has this great infrastructure program, but
Henri-Bourassa Boulevard has yet to be completed.
So I wish to express my indignation at the extremely unfair
treatment of the Montreal area, especially Montréal-Nord. Federal
members and ministers from Montreal are not doing anything for
the city. The federal government must take concrete action to
straighten out the disastrous socioeconomic situation of what used
to be the heart of Quebec's economy.
I would like to say a few words about what the Minister of
Human Resources Development has just told us in this House. He
told us that the Quebec government treats Montreal like any other
region in Quebec. That is not true. The Quebec government has
appointed a minister responsible for Montreal, Serge Ménard, who
is doing a great job, unlike the federal government.
I think the minister is exaggerating when he talks about all the
great things his government has done for Montreal. He should
spend more time in his own riding of Papineau-Saint-Michel,
which borders on my riding of Bourassa, where many unemployed
Haitian and other immigrants live in incredible poverty.
Pearless, a company in my riding, laid off many workers, most
of whom were from Latin America, Asia and Haiti.
(1615)
This morning, the secretary of state responsible for regional
development spoke to us about CDECs or economic and
community development corporations. There is a CDEC in
Montréal-Nord, but, unfortunately, the federal government is no
longer providing $25,000 to develop this institution, this
organization. The Quebec government, for its part, gave $25,000,
while the city of Montréal-Nord provided $15,000 plus office
space, which is equivalent to $25,000. There is no federal
contribution at this time. Is this their way of supporting CDECs,
which do a wonderful job in the whole Montreal area, especially
Montréal- Nord?
For all these reasons, I support the Bloc motion and condemn the
Liberal government's policies concerning Montreal and especially
its failure to take action.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It is my duty,
pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the
questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as
follows: the hon. member for Shefford, military justice; the hon.
member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, tourism.
[Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I listened
carefully to the comments made by the hon. member for Bourassa
and I perfectly understand his position.
However, I find it somewhat ironic that he and his party should
try to find a scapegoat, when the scapegoat himself cannot
understand their separatist policies.
I know that from time to time we must take firm positions on
policies, but that should not, in the end, prevent anyone from
working, from earning a living. That is why I do understand the
hon. member's comments.
I know that from one end of our beautiful country to the other,
people are struggling. Just a few hours ago, GM workers on strike
in Ontario held out their hands to workers on strike at the GM plant
in Sainte-Thérèse. We saw two communities working together and
finally succeeding in reaching a satisfactory agreement with the
company.
Using this example, I could suggest-and I easily get involved in
policies-that the situation in Montreal is not that different from
the situation elsewhere, except that we do recognize it in our
ridings.
The hon. member is fully aware that Montrealers, anglophones
and francophones alike, sometimes come to see us to tell us how
bad the situation is in Montreal and that it is a result not only of
federal and provincial government policies, but also of the
changing economy, so we must co-operate and adapt.
5698
Instead of putting a question to the hon. member who, of course,
must approve the motion, I hold out my hand to him saying: ``Work
with us, work with Franco-Ontarians, work with others in this
country. We are here to help you''. But we must hold out our hands,
we must have hope in our future, in our future together. Does he not
agree with this sincere offer from our government?
Mr. Nunez: Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member that
we should congratulate CAW workers for settling a dispute which
lasted a few weeks between the CAW and General Motors. Ontario
and Quebec workers succeeded and I congratulate them because
they won a difficult battle.
Second, the federal government has a major responsibility
regarding Montreal's problems. The Quebec government did its
share. It appointed a minister responsible for Montreal. As for the
federal government, it makes decisions that are detrimental to
Quebec, and particularly to Montreal.
(1620)
For example, the federal government favours Canadian
International, whose activities are concentrated in western Canada,
at the expense of Air Canada, whose head office is in Montreal. It
makes decisions concerning Canada's railway system-Montreal
used to be the hub of the railroad industry until a few years
ago-with the result that the whole industry is now moving west.
Montreal used to be Canada's metropolis. Now, Toronto has taken
that title away from it. A large number of these decisions were
made by the federal government, at the expense of Montreal. I am
not saying that the federal government is responsible for all of
Montreal's misfortunes, but it is largely responsible for its difficult
and even disastrous economic situation, particularly from an
employment standpoint.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, I always
like to review the historical background of an issue before
beginning to speak about it, in order to explain certain things for
the present and the future. One always has to remember a little
what happened a few years earlier. I have always thought that the
past is something of an indication of what the future holds.
Judging by what happened a few years ago, I can say that the
federal government has surely not been the engine behind
Montreal's economic development, quite the contrary. I will give a
few examples. I will back a rather long way, but the problems arose
since then; as you know, there was the so called Borden line
established by the oil energy legislation. During the period the
Prime Minister was Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, that
Borden line cost Montreal between 8,000 and 10,000 jobs. We have
to remember that.
In 1986, the federal government inaugurated a large airport
called Mirabel. The following year, it decided to deregulate air
transportation, which brought about the fall of Mirabel-Dorval
airport and a further loss of ten thousand jobs in the area of
Montreal. All because of the federal government. There too, these
were badly targeted expenditures by the federal government.
A tremendous amount of money was spent between 1970 and
1980, and programs were not necessarily well directed, which
meant that they were not consistent with the development of
Montreal. Once again, we did not get the funds needed to develop
normally like the other regions of Canada. It is for these reasons
that I like to look back. We must always remember that, as I said
earlier, the past is something of an indication of what the future
holds.
When I heard the Prime Minister say this week in Montreal that
his ``government is targeting its investments to make Montreal a
leader in the new technologies of the future'', I did not think he was
very credible. I do not have much confidence in that rhetoric. It was
a speech meant to please, a pre-election speech to make Quebecers
believe that he was very much concerned, but we know very well
that he has been the main source of the problems the metropolitan
area of Montreal is having. It is not very amusing to see a Prime
Minister or a government making great speeches when we know
very well that it will not make much difference.
I will explain why I do not trust the government. First, only a few
months ago, the federal government decided to shut down the
Montreal offices of the Atomic Energy Commission of Canada.
The Bloc Quebecois raised this issue several times. We have
managed to keep almost half the employees of the Atomic Energy
Control Board, but what the federal government really wanted, as
was announced, was to close down the board's office in Montreal.
When the Prime Minister says he wants to turn Montreal into the
city of the technology of the future, and when at the same time he is
closing down the board's office, I fail to see how he can have any
credibility making that speech in Montreal.
(1625)
That is why we have decided to spend this day talking about his
visit there and the actions taken recently in Montreal to regain
some credibility. But we have to emphasize the gap between what
is said and what is actually done.
They wanted to close down the Atomic Energy Control Board
office, and we managed to keep half of it. We know that in this area
Montreal will definitely take a back-seat. We also know that
gradually, as the years go by, there will be no one left in this
Montreal office. How could we trust that kind of speech?
We wanted to condemn this rhetoric, and that is why we are here.
Quebecers have elected 53 members of the Bloc to represent them
5699
in Ottawa. We are here to condemn this kind of rhetoric, because
we know it is just a sham.
I have another reason to think we should not trust this rhetoric,
and that is the fact that the natural resources minister has decided to
stop subsidizing the Tokamak project in Varennes, near Montreal.
This Tokamak project is one the most advanced facilities in the
world for scientific development. Europe, the United States and
Japan are partners in this project to develop nuclear energy.
We have extraordinary skills to develop in this area. It is the
energy of the future. But the natural resources minister said that the
energy of the future and nuclear fusion are not her priority. It is
easy to understand, because she stands up for the oil industry in
western Canada. She stands up for the uranium plants in Ontario,
which is the type of industries she wants to develop.
She has forgotten that nuclear fusion is tomorrow's source of
energy. Twenty or 25 years from now, petroleum products will not
be used that much any longer. Electrical power consumption will
be on the decline. We will still use electricity, but it will be
produced through nuclear fusion.
On the one hand, they say they want to help the Montreal area,
but on the other hand, they cancel some projects and stop funding
very significant sectors, like nuclear fusion and the Atomic Energy
Board. So, we cannot believe a word the Prime Minister says in his
speeches.
I met with the general manager of the Tokamak project, who told
me and proved to me that the $7 million the federal government
was investing each year in this project had much more significant
economic spinoffs. Some of the new products that had to be
invented to develop this form of energy are proving to be useful to
several businesses in the Montreal area, which, in turn, are
developing other new products. The products developed through
the research carried out by the Tokamak project generate much
more than the $7 million investment made by the federal
government.
By cutting this subsidy, the federal government is running the
risk of putting an end to this extraordinary Tokamak project and
stands to lose some money. The Minister of Natural Resources did
not take the time to properly assess this project. The Prime
Minister said he has a technological vision of the future, but his
words do not match the reality.
Yesterday or was it this morning, I read in the paper that,
according to the OECD, Quebec ranks fourth among all the
countries as far as research and development is concerned.
However, we know that this government does not invest as much as
it should in research and development in Quebec.
(1630)
This means that Quebec has to invest its share in R and D, plus
the $2 million it is not getting from the federal government.
Did you really think that we could create jobs when the federal
government is not paying its share, which comes to $2 million a
year? If times are tough in Montreal, which has extraordinary
intellectual resources, people who unfortunately do not have much
work due to a lack of money, it is precisely because the federal
government is not paying its share in R and D.
[English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
my wife and I spent the last two weekends in Montreal. We love
going there. My wife says that no city in the world has smoked
meat like Montreal has. She will also says that no city in the world
has bagels like Montreal has.
However, on our last visit we were very depressed. We took a
taxi from Dorval airport to downtown Montreal. When I want to
learn what is happening in a city I usually talk to taxi drivers and
barbers. I learn a lot from these two professions.
The taxi driver told us that he was not pleased with what was
happening. He said that he was selling his taxi business, which
shocked me. He was selling his home. I asked him why. He replied:
``Things are not certain. I cannot go on living this way''. When I
asked him how long he had been in Montreal he told me 25 years.
He is selling his taxi business and his home. He is moving to
Toronto. He speaks French, English and Greek. These are the kinds
of human resources we have in our beautiful country and in la belle
province, Quebec. He is selling out, moving out to join his brother
who has a restaurant and an apartment business in Toronto.
That depressed me. Here is a true entrepreneur who helped to
build the economy of Montreal and Quebec for 25 years, and now
he is pulling out because of political uncertainty.
The member for Longueuil has been here as long as I have, if not
longer, so I am sure he will take my question seriously. Rather than
blame the federal government falsely, as this motion does, to say-
[Translation]
-the federal government's under-investment in research and development; its
inequitable allocation of federal purchases of goods and services-
This is not true.
[English]
It is a false motion. Rather than blame the taxi driver I talked to
who is moving from Montreal, what is the Bloc Quebecois Party
doing to keep these entrepreneurs in Montreal? By falsely blaming
5700
the federal government the Bloc is driving more of these
entrepreneurs out of Montreal.
The Bloc Quebecois has a responsibility as its members were
elected by a large group of people, and that I respect. The reason
they are sitting here is because they were put here through a
democratic process. What are they doing to prevent this flight of
entrepreneurs from Montreal?
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Madam Speaker, what we are doing
is very simple: we do what we are doing today. First, we call to
order the people who tell us lies about Montreal. It is important to
do this first.
Second, this thing about political uncertainty is old hat. Every
expert and business and every poll on the subject said that political
uncertainty has nothing to do with Montreal's situation. This has to
be made clear once and for all. Everybody said so. Experts said it
again last week on television. We read about it every day in the
papers. The political situation has nothing to do with the loss of
jobs in Montreal.
As we all know, the problem with Montreal is that the federal
government never took care of Quebec for the last 30 years.
(1635)
It is mainly the fault of this Prime Minister who, for 30 years,
has been trying to please western Canada and Ontario to be able to
win votes, because he is a Quebecer. That is the true reason.
This same Prime Minister scuttled Meech because Quebec had
obtained a little more freedom to manage its own things. He
became the leader of the Liberal Party and to run down the
Conservative government that was on the point of realizing one of
the finest Canadian projects, he scuttled the whole deal, and only so
he could become Prime Minister.
Power took precedence over the interests of Quebec. This Prime
Minister ruined Montreal. This is clear. Everybody can say so, and
prove it: his attitude toward Quebec was terrible. He has been
active in politics for 30 years and he has been working against
Quebec for 30 years. This is why the members of the Bloc, all 53 of
us, are now here in Ottawa. We are here because we could not get
members from Quebec to really represent us. To get elected, they
would do anything to please western Canada, Ontario and the
Atlantic provinces.
This is the old way, the old story of Canada. It was this way
under the Trudeau government, under the Saint-Laurent
government and under this Prime Minister's government.
Unfortunately, my time is up, although I would have so much
more to say on this subject.
[English]
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
all of us sitting here and particularly the hon. member for
Longueuil who has been in the House for many years as a member
of the Conservative Party, know the nature of the discontent that
has spread throughout this country. The majority of the population
voted for this party.
Now he has the nerve to say that they are unhappy. He crossed
the floor and joined the Bloc Quebecois. He said there was no way
that politics or the environment of Quebec are at fault, it is the
weather and the federal government.
Has the weather made it even worse or just the federal
government?
[Translation]
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): Madam Speaker, politics is not as
simple as it looks. It implies many attitudes. One must look at
history a little. A country cannot become impoverished in the span
of six months, three days or five weeks. One must examine the
history of the last 30 years to understand the current plight of
Quebec, which is plagued by a 15 or 12 per cent unemployment
rate and an almost equal number of welfare recipients. This is a
reality.
When I say the last 30 years, I am speaking of the current Prime
Minister, who was in the government then. He is responsible for
this situation.
[English]
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
as I read the outline of the debate we are faced with today, I note
that once again political disinformation is being put before us as an
object for debate and vote. Members of the Bloc Quebecois blame
everybody but themselves. They blame the whole world, including
the weather. They do not recognize what is going on in Quebec
society or the problems that Quebec is living with today. It is really
a travesty. It also happens to be untrue, unfounded and unrealistic.
I really think that when ideology takes over from reality we
really have a very serious issue before us.
One thing we need to remember is that Canada, Quebec and, in
particular, Montreal has a population that is a reflection of the
country we have built together. It is built on a series of values,
policies, programs and philosophies which are shared by the
majority of Quebecers, except for one small ideological group
which is stuck on language and nothing else. I should not say they
are only concerned with language. They are also concerned with
culture and cultural issues which are important and valuable.
5701
(1640)
However, we also want this reflected in the House. This culture
is reflected through you, Madam Speaker, as a francophone from
New Brunswick, through our new minister of la francophonie who
is a francophone from Ontario and through a number of our
ministers and secretaries of state who are francophones from
Manitoba, British Columbia, northern Ontario and elsewhere. We
also have, by the way, anglophones from Quebec who sit in this
House.
We have many representatives in this House who show the
diversity of the country. We have aboriginal people who are
representative of Quebec and this country. One of the problems
members opposite have is a lack of recognition of the diversity and
multicultural nature of the province of Quebec.
They also lack the desire to recognize the fact that this
government under the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the
ministers and all the members of the caucus have expressed support
for the views put forward a red book. This is an excellent red book
and covers over 189 issues. We have been very frank and
forthcoming about what the issues are and what we have
accomplished. Over 75 per cent of the promises that we made have
been accomplished. We are an open government that is fair, honest
and very concerned about the well-being of Quebec.
[Translation]
There is no magic formula for attracting investors, whatever the
sector. There is only one reason, and it is the big companies or the
small and medium size ones that decide how, when and where they
wish to invest. For the most part, with the changes that occurred in
the era of communication, of market globalization, businesses
must find the niches where they can really acquire the expertise and
become the best in the world. We have this here, in Montreal.
I am saying this as a Montrealer as well as a member for a riding
that has two industrial parks where big retailers and even small and
medium size businesses were established. These businesses
received Quebec-Canada partnership grants to be more successful.
To attract investment, there is a whole set of factors, such as a
positive business environment, and the quality of life that we can
find in Montreal. When businesses, big private companies have to
make a decision on the location of a new research facility, they
think about the stability of the Canadian economic climate.
Inflation and interest rates are low. This is why the member of the
Bloc Quebecois who spoke before me should realize that we have
put in place the groundwork for attracting investors.
What is this groundwork? It is low inflation and interest rates.
The Government of Canada is committed to a reduction program
that should bring the deficit to 1 per cent of GDP by 1999. I think
that we also recognize that our legislation protecting intellectual
property and innovation is essential for investments in R and D.
The tax incentives granted by the Government of Canada for R
and D are the most generous in the world. That is why investors
come to our country. And the Minister of Industry encourages them
to do so. I must admit I told him that I was very happy he should
come to my riding to invite three major companies to choose our
industrial park and to give them assurance regarding the money and
the support they will get from the Government of Quebec and the
Government of Canada, through the Quebec-Canada agreement.
(1645)
The minister assured that Ericsson, Biochem and the National
Research Centre that they are welcome in my riding. This implies
huge amounts of money, but I will talk about this later. Thanks to
these high technology industries, Montreal now has the critical
mass necessary to be one of the major centres in the world-and
they say that we have done nothing-in many leading sectors.
Montreal has reached this point through partnership agreements
with the private sector, the academic and research communities,
provincial as well as federal governments and people from 85
countries who have the knowledge and the expertise required and
who decided to come to Quebec, people who speak many
languages, who know the work and the business cultures in other
sectors of this country.
[English]
The immigrants who have come to Montreal have been the
greatest innovators in many ways. Not only are they entrepreneurs
who have created small and medium size businesses, they are
people who come from different cultures around the world. They
understand the cultures and the languages and how business is done
around the world. They are a precious asset. They are a hidden
asset. They know how we can seek business and become
entrepreneurial in this new globalized world where
competitiveness is the key. They know how to produce manpower
at a cost per unit of production which is the lowest in the world in
many fields, the field of pharmaceuticals, the field of aeronautics,
the field of technology and the field of telecommunications.
I only have one minute left. I wish I could talk about all the
wonderful dollars which we have invested. I have a wonderful
speech and if I had time I would be pleased to tell hon. members
about the millions and millions of dollars which have been
invested.
I would like to cite two or three examples. We have approved 77
projects, which represent an investment of more than $3.8 billion.
Both governments, with an investment of $575 million, have
created more than 8,500 jobs. I would like to know how the
Government of Quebec or more particularly the Bloc Quebecois
finds that difficult.
5702
The increase in sales from these investments has amounted to
more than $5 billion. That money went into the economy and was
taxed in the province of Quebec, like it is in the rest of Canada.
The major part of this growth and development is as a result of
international sales and Team Canada. I hope the premier of Quebec
goes with the Prime Minister. Then he will see what the advantages
of co-operation are between leaders of government in the interests
of the people and not in the interests of an ideology based on
culture and language. That is not enough for a country to grow on.
There has to be an open spirit. There have to be open minds.
Everyone is welcome and everyone is equal. That is a fundamental
characteristic and a value of the dignity of human beings and work.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, you might
find it strange that a member from Quebec City should take part in
a debate on Montreal. But let me explain why I wanted to speak.
Montreal used to be Canada's metropolis, but it still is Quebec's
metropolis. It is a city whose economic development obviously
meshes with the economic development of the rest of Quebec.
When Montreal suffers, the rest of Quebec suffers too. This has
been known for a long time.
But what I find somewhat offensive in the hon. member's speech
is that she suggested-and I do not remember her exact
words-that the members from the Bloc and the other members
from Quebec should put the cultural and linguistic issues aside, or
at least give them less importance-
(1650)
Mrs. Finestone: I did not say that, I did not say that at all.
Mr. Dubé: Yes, you said that in your last paragraph, just at the
end of your speech.
The hon. member lives in Montreal, I know that she is a sensible
person, who generally recognizes reality. I do not want to insult
her, but I would like her to clarify her thinking in this regard.
Does she admit that the good health of Montreal's economy is
important for Quebec? Does she recognize that things are the way
they are in Quebec because language is important, since we are a
French speaking majority? Language and culture are important for
the development of Quebecers, like they are for other peoples.
Of course, we are open to immigration. We prove it every day of
the year. In the Bloc, the hon. member for Bourassa is an example
of our openness. We are not against immigration, we are not
against other languages, but it must be recognized that it is normal
for Quebecers to ask that efforts be made for the economic
development of their metropolis.
I would like the hon. member to clarify her thinking because I
may have misunderstood. I hope that I misunderstood her because
she seemed to suggest that we should not attach any importance to
cultural identity and language.
Mrs. Finestone: Madam Speaker, first of all, I want the member
to understand that I am proud to be a Quebecer. I am proud of both
the French and English languages and cultures. I want them both to
be respected, as well as the other languages and cultures of the
people who chose to make our province their home. They are equal
partners, each in their own community.
Secondly, I totally agree with you that Montreal is the heart of
Quebec, its economic engine. However, if we want to pursue this
idea, we must have an open mind and recognize that the federal
government has several objectives, in partnership with the Quebec
government and under the Quebec-Canada agreement-or
Canada-Quebec if you prefer-on the development of the various
sectors. First of all, this agreement is designed to promote the
coordination of efforts between both governments to improve
Quebec's competitiveness and economic health, especially in
Montreal, the province's economic engine. The agreement
succeeds in reaching this goal by giving financial support to major
industrial projects capable of diversifying Montreal's and Quebec's
industrial structure.
I think you will agree with me that it is a very good idea, and we
are doing it in partnership.
What bothered me about the previous speeches is that members
were saying that Mr. Chrétien has been here for 30 years. Well, it is
a good thing because, as a political leader, he has a vision of
Quebec that is representative of all Canada, of which I am part as a
Montrealer. I think it is not fair to say that it is our party and our
leader who are destroying Montreal and who are hindering its
economic development. It is not true. It is false.
That is what I said before and I am saying it again, and that is all
I have to say about this issue.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I spent five years in the Quebec National
Assembly on the opposition benches, and almost four years on the
government benches.
I was in opposition during the Parti Quebecois's second term of
office. Whenever Quebec's problems were mentioned, there were
two solutions. The first was that everything wrong in Quebec was
the fault of the federal government. That was taken for granted.
Everything that was going badly in Quebec was because of the
federal government.
Every time something went badly, summits were held to find a
solution. We had endless summits. The summit master of them all,
Mr. Landry, held summits every week, every month, every quarter:
economic summits, cultural summits, summits on this, that and the
other.
5703
(1655)
I see that times have not changed. The discourse here has not
changed. It is always the same old song: ``For 30 years now,
Quebec has had a tough time, and it is the fault of the federal
government, the fault of Mr. Chrétien, but it is never our fault in
Quebec. We will hold a summit and everything will turn out fine.
We will make wonderful speeches''.
And now they come here and tell us that things are not going
well in Montreal because of the federal government. I live in a very
prosperous area of Montreal Island. One field that is doing well is
high technology, as are the aerospace industry, and the
communications, informatics, and information fields, and all these
companies are doing extremely well. I am very familiar with them,
having spoken to many of their general managers and shareholders.
I will give you three examples: someone built a computer
company a few years ago from nothing. Today, this company has
700 employees and annual sales of $250 million.
What has happened? When it looks for scientists and research
technicians, it cannot find them in Canada and has to bring them in
from the United States, England, Germany and elsewhere. It cannot
find them because they no longer want to come to Quebec. So what
has it done? It has moved its research centre to Florida.
Second example: a thriving, fibre optics company. What has
happened? After the referendum, it lost eight of its best scientists.
The president wrote to tell me: ``The very heart of my business has
left''.
A third company, also in computers, and also doing extremely
well, hired all the managers it could in Quebec, through Canadian
universities. It is still looking for 65 scientists, but cannot find any
who want to come here. There is all the publicity in the schools
about the referendum, talk every day about the referendum. These
are examples from Quebec.
If businessmen are discussing it, they say ``No, they are traitors
to Quebec''. If the Chamber of Commerce does, they say ``It is the
Chamber of Commerce talking''. If it is the Conseil du patronat,
they say ``No, they are not us''. But what if it is the mayor of
Montreal himself? He was quoted in a headline in Le Devoir the
other day as saying ``Political instability is what is finishing off
Montreal''. What if it is your Mr. Dumont himself, the good buddy
of the PQ and the Bloc, who says: ``Put your referendum on hold
for ten years''? We are not the ones saying this, nor the Prime
Minister, it is your partner, Mr. Dumont.
No, you will not listen. You will not listen because you do not
want to hear. I could list off all the investments in which the federal
and Quebec governments have participated. I and my colleagues
have been at some of the opening ceremonies myself, and we work
very closely together.
Two years ago, I had the experience of working with a trilateral
team, made up of the federal government, the Quebec government
and the City of Montreal, to try to get the secretariat of the
Convention on Biodiversity here to Montreal. We were successful,
because on both sides we were neither federalists, nor Quebecers,
nor Montrealers. We were instead all working together for the
prosperity of our community.
We worked together, regardless of political stripe, regardless of
what community we came from, whether Quebec City, Montreal or
somewhere else. We worked together, and we were successful.
Today we have formed that same trilateral team to get the
Secretariat for the Convention to Control Desertification to
Montreal. I am a player on that team, and very pleased to be a
member.
This is proof that people can work together if there is good will.
Let us put aside our never-ending quarrels about language and
politics. Surely we can work together to build things that will make
our community, our country and our province prosperous, without
regard to race, religion or political considerations, for the sake of
the people who live there. We can do it.
However, the only thing you want is to be negative and say that
things are not going well and that the federal government, not you,
is responsible for the present situation.
(1700)
Every time we have an opportunity to build something together,
you go back to the past and talk about Mr. Chrétien in 1970 instead
of talking about today, the future and the new century and about the
fact that Montreal is not well because of the chronic political
instability which exists there and which everyone denounces.
Americans and Europeans talk about it. Where there is instability
there is no investment.
I urge you, as people who are proud to be Montrealers,
Quebecers and Canadians, to forget your mean prejudices, your
never-ending quarrels, your famous referendum which you will
never win and persist in holding, and work instead to revitalize our
city. Montreal is for everyone of us, on this side or on the other,
something we all take to heart. So let us work together to build
Montreal instead of having those never-ending quarrels.
[English]
I am just saying that we can work together if we want to work
together. Every day the federal government, the Quebec
government and the city of Montreal work together in harmony and
peace. It is only because of the separatists who believe in division,
who believe in quarrels, who believe in a negative option that today
Montreal is suffering and sick. The only way to build it is to
5704
breathe hope, unity and political peace into it so investments can
return and Montreal can flourish again.
[Translation]
This is our most precious wish. I hope that next time you will
introduce a motion it will be a positive and constructive motion for
us all, whether we live in Montreal, in Quebec or in Canada.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, when
federalists do not know what to say, they say the problems are due
to the fact that we want a referendum. They refuse to face the facts.
The Liberals say we are against everything, but that is not true. We
are not against everything. We are just monitoring the federal
government.
I was on the government benches when the drug patent bill was
passed. Bill C-22 and Bill C-91, that was when I was a
Conservative, and we worked very hard to bring pharmaceutical
research to Montreal. It was a vicious struggle. The Liberals took
advantage of their position in the Senate, and it was a year before
this legislation was passed. They did not want to see these projects
in the Montreal region and especially right next to the riding of
Lachine-Saint-Louis.
Hundreds of millions of dollars were invested, which created
thousands and thousands of jobs. The Liberal government at the
time did everything it could to prevent the passage of this bill. For
the first time in Canada's history, researchers from Montreal
demonstrated on Parliament Hill and persuade the Liberals to adopt
this bill in order to create jobs in Montreal.
You think we can trust the federal government. You think we are
against everything. In fact, we know we cannot trust the
government. The evidence tells us we cannot trust the federal
Liberal government. I repeat, the past shows what the future holds
in store. That is why Quebecers had so little confidence in the
federal government that they elected 53 Bloc Quebecois members
to represent them in a worthy manner and to protect their interests.
My answer to the minister who was formerly a minister in
Quebec City and said we were just a bunch of complainers is that
Montreal is not in such a bad shape, on the contrary. I have
confidence in the people of Montreal. I know there are people in
Montreal with extraordinary intellectual capabilities that can
accomplish great things. We have done some great things, and if we
did not have a federal government that destroys everything as soon
as we build it, we would be better off.
(1705)
I repeat, the OECD says that Quebec ranks fourth on research
and development, which means that although we get less than $2
billion from the federal government, as a province we do more
research and development than almost anywhere in the world. We
are fourth in the world. Why? It means the Quebec government has
to pay twice as much.
They tell us they give us more in Quebec City. Sure, they give us
more as far as unemployment is concerned. Do we want money for
our poor because we will never be rich, because the federal
government prevents us from earning an honest living? I do not
think that is what we want. Quebecers are people with dignity who
want to work and are resourceful. I believe in Quebecers. We want
to be sovereign because we think that once Quebec is sovereign, it
will be in a far better position to develop its potential. It is blessed
with outstanding natural and human resources. But we do not get
the help we need.
An hon. member: You are against everything.
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil): We are not against everything, on the
contrary. We are keeping tabs on the government. He should be
ashamed for saying that. He was fighting to prevent us from
passing Bill C-22 and Bill C-91. It was his party. He were not here
at the time. I was here. I remember. We won, and today, hundreds
of millions of dollars have been invested in western Montreal,
especially.
Just recently, the Liberals on the House of Commons committee
on regulations tried to pull a fast one. They tried to change the
period. Lucky the Bloc Quebecois was there to keep an eye on
them, because otherwise we would have been had once again. Can
we trust these people? Never.
Mr.Lincoln: Madam Speaker, I could have taken time to
exchange statistics with my colleague for Longueuil. I could have
told him that, for example, in 1993, according to the last official
statistics from the provincial and federal governments, Quebec
received $41 billion from the federal government, whereas it
returned only $29 billion in taxes. I could have showed him that, in
recent years, up to 1993, Quebec received an additional $137
billion.
But I think all this rhetoric is in vain. He will say that we gave 19
per cent more to other provinces for research and development, but
he will say nothing of the fact that, for instance, Quebec receives
50 per cent with regards to milk. He could also speak about the
RCMP, which receives 17 per cent.
A federation is a system of balances. Sometimes, we get more,
and sometimes less. That is why transfer payments exist. That is
why the national capital exists. The entire national capital and the
research centre are lumped in with Ontario. However, taking it out
would mean a completely different set of figures. But I do not feel
like fighting a battle over figures, even though I could have won
very easily.
I only want to tell him that if Montreal's mayor himself-and he
is certainly not a member of our party-believes that Montreal is
being sapped and even killed by political instability, and if all
5705
objective observers tell the same thing, one has to be deaf and blind
not to believe it. Personally, I firmly believe that such is the truth.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
motion we are debating today, presented by the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois, the member for Roberval, reads as follows:
That this House recognize Montreal as the economic mainspring of Quebec
society and, therefore, condemn the federal government's lack of concrete initiatives
in supporting the Montreal area economy, primarily: the federal government's
under-investment in research and development; its inequitable allocation of federal
purchases of goods and services; its lack of willingness to support Montreal as a
major financial centre in North America and its termination of Montreal's role as a
major transportation centre.
The Liberal Party, despite the commitments it made in its
famous red book, has done nothing for Montreal and the Montreal
region. Even worse, because of its job creation policies, the federal
government directly contributed to the impoverishment of
Montreal. Over the years, several decisions made by the federal
government, more specifically, under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, have
contributed to Montreal's losing of influence to Toronto, a plan
well orchestrated by the federal government, with the blessings of
the anglophone majority of Canada.
(1710)
I will not repeat everything that has been said here by my
colleagues from the Bloc Québécois with respect to
impoverishment, but for us Montreal is and will always be the heart
of the Quebec community.
What I will say today concerns Montreal as a major
transportation hub.
Early this week, the Prime Minister of Canada addressed the
Montreal Chamber of Commerce. In his speech, he said that he
wanted to help Montreal get back on its feet. He even said he was
willing to associate himself with other government levels so that
they could together, in a spirit of partnership-just imagine, using
the word ``partnership'' we are so familiar with-improve the
situation in Quebec's major city, where poverty now prevails. In his
speech, the Prime Minister also made reference to the port of
Montreal.
However, he forgot to say how for decades the actions of the
federal government have contributed to killing the port and rail
activities, to eliminating any chance Montreal had to once again be
a hub for the freight and passenger transportation in this region of
America.
Here are some true examples. First, there is the latest
intervention by the federal government, the bill on Canada's
oceans, part of which deals with a new fee structure for the services
of the Coast Guard. In practical terms, the coming into force of this
bill will result in additional costs for ships sailing through the St.
Lawrence and the Great Lakes, while the Churchill port, in
Manitoba, will not have to pay for the coast guard's services. Once
again, this double standard can only harm the port of Montreal.
It is important to point out that in Quebec many industries
depend on shipping for their livelihood. Every year, they pour $1.2
billion in the economy. Some 20 million tonnes of freight transit
through the port of Montreal, which represents 726,000 containers
a year. This accounts for 14,000 direct and indirect jobs. This is
what is at stake. But mainly, it is ice free and navigable 12 months
of the year, which is not the case for Churchill.
Bill C-26 would be a double whammy for the Montreal port
since it already faces very stiff competition from American eastern
seaboard ports. The passage of Bill C-26 might result in the
diversion of all shipping towards the United States. This would not
be the first time the federal government is hampering Montreal's
profitability. Many decisions have lead to the loss of rail and port
infrastructure in Montreal.
Madam Speaker, I see that I have only one minute left. May I
have unanimous consent to finish my speech?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): I must put the
motion to the vote at 5.15 p.m.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Madam Speaker, I wanted to talk about
the building of the St. Lawrence seaway. In the fifties, Canada and
the United States decided to build the seaway. It had a negative
impact on Montreal. It killed its economy.
As you know, Quebec taxpayers paid their fair share of the
seaway. At the end of the day, it cost Montreal its competitive edge.
To conclude, I would like to say, since I am running out of time,
that it is with initiatives such as these that the federal government
has been undermining the role of Montreal as a transportation hub.
We have lots of practical suggestions to offer-as my Bloc
colleagues and I have done all day-to put Montreal, the heart of
Quebec, back in its rightful place in Canada and in America.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being5.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put
forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of
supply.
The question is on Mr. Ménard's amendment to the amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
5706
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
order made earlier today, the recorded division stands deferred
until Tuesday, October 29, 1996, at the end of the Government
Orders period.
As for private members' business, the member for Burlington is
not present in the House to propose the order according to the
notice published in today's Notice Paper. Therefore, the order is
dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order
Paper.
Is there unanimous consent to proceed to the adjournment
debate?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
5706
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
Department of National Defence is one of the largest federal
departments, with a work force of about 25,000 civilian employees,
a regular force of about 67,000 military personnel, a reserve of
about 23,000 people and an annual budget of almost $10.5 billion.
In the last few years, the minister has been confronted with
constant internal changes that concern me a lot and, I am sure,
Canadian and Quebec taxpayers as well.
It is true that National Defence went through a program of
massive work force reduction and put in place a program of
restructuring its command and internal control, due to the budget
cuts that were imposed. But what concerns me mostly is the fact
that all these changes seem to be accompanied by a chronic
leadership void at the highest levels of the military hierarchy.
I was reading this week a document from the auditor general of
Canada, dated February 1994, concerning the transition within
National Defence. Some allegations in it are confirming my
concerns.
On page 5 of that document, one can read, and I quote: ``We
found persistent deficiencies in the department's accountability
systems and reports to Parliament. We noted inconsistencies in data
concerning unit combat readiness and we expressed concerns
relating to data control in the central performance management
system.''
On the next page, the auditors found out that the largest
component of the reserve, that is the militia, had no performance
standards. We learned that the department was providing very few
data to Parliament about the reserve performance and that the
information given could sometimes be misleading.
Consequently, with this type of situation that has been going on
for many years within the armed forces, how could there be no
excesses? How can we make sure that officers in charge can control
the few individuals who are damaging the morale and the image of
our troops abroad and at home?
How can we prevent scandals such as the Somalia affair or the
cover-up operation orchestrated by the higher echelons of the
military structure?
(1720)
I would like the government to explain to me what it plans on
doing to restore the credibility of our troops, of our military
interventions and our peacekeeping operations abroad. What
measures does the new Minister of National Defence plan to take to
prevent the corruption and abuse problems which not only tarnish
the department's image, but undermine the morale of the troops?
The government must be responsible. It must undertake as fast
as possible a cleaning operation within our armed forces. It must
not do what it just did, which is wait until the scandals come from
all directions before acting under pressure from public opinion and
negative polls.
It is the government's duty to have authority over its generals,
and all of its senior officers responsible for our security. The
taxpayers are entitled to respect. Every year, we pay more than
$10.5 billion to maintain a disciplined institution, and it strikes me
as normal for those responsible for its administration to be
answerable for their actions.
Does the government have plans for another cross-Canada
survey to find out what it needs to do now to reinstate a code of
conduct in our armed services personnel abroad? Does the
government have plans for another survey to find out what it needs
to do to get those who manage the Department of National Defence
to administer the billions of dollars entrusted to them with
decency?
In the interest of transparency and accountability, will the Prime
Minister shoulder his own responsibilities and call for the Minister
of National Defence to rectify his code of ethics and to thoroughly
scrutinize the events which are a constant source of scandal, day
after day?
5707
Mr. John Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure, and I thank the hon. member
for Shefford for his question.
[English]
However, I have to put into perspective some of his concerns.
When discussing the military justice system it is important to
recognize that the system is there to support the stringent and often
unique requirements of military discipline during peacetime, but
more particularly wartime.
This does not mean that the military justice system exists in
isolation. This is not the case, nor should it be.
Indeed the military justice system seeks to parallel the civil
judicial system. As a result, the military justice system has and
continues to evolve alongside the civil judicial system.
For example, Canadians can rest assured that the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms has applied to the military justice
system from the moment the charter came into force and effect.
Citizen soldier are treated no differently than other Canadian
citizens under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There should be no misconception, however, that the military
justice system as it currently exists is somehow less rigorous and
holds military members to some lesser standards of justice. In fact,
recent judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada and the Court
Martial Appeal Court of Canada have endorsed the independence
of the court martial system but indeed the integrity and validity of
the system as well.
We do recognize, however, that all justice systems are complex
and must evolve in order to keep pace with the changing needs of
the society they serve.
As I have already stated, recent Supreme Court rulings support
the overall validity of the military justice system. Yet there is
always a need for the legal system to be examined vis-à-vis a
changing society.
We must seek to allay concerns that the military justice system
may somehow be less than rigorous and unable to withstand public
scrutiny. Toward this end I can assure this House that the prudent
and measured examination of the military justice system will
continue.
Of course, the work of the Somalia commission of inquiry
concerning the military justice system will be an important element
of any examination. It is therefore with anticipation that we look
forward to receiving the recommendations of the commission upon
the conclusion of its work on March 25, 1997.
(1725 )
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, further to my question to the Minister of Industry, I wish
to emphasize that tourism is one of the most important industries in
my riding. It is an industry that accounts for half the jobs, that is
one in every two jobs in the riding. It is a significant economic
generator in Parry Sound-Muskoka.
It is also a significant economic generator throughout the rest of
Canada, which is why our government increased to $50 million its
support to this important sector. It is why our government
established the Canadian Tourism Commission to stem the tide of
the international tourism deficit.
Indeed, tourism is a $26 billion industry in this country and
constitutes in my riding wholehearted support for the federal
government's action to increase the economic spinoffs from this
important sector.
However, I believe that through the Canadian Tourism
Commission there is even more that can be done. It is true that in
partnership with industry members, the private sector and federal
and provincial governments the tourism commission has been
successful in achieving a 13 per cent increase in international
tourism receipts in Canada.
These initiatives have also generated an almost 2 per cent
increase in employment in the tourism sector, which is good news
for Canadians everywhere.
This is good progress, but I want to make sure that everything
that can be done will be done to enhance economic development in
areas that are dependent on tourism for their livelihood and, in
particular, in rural and remote areas of Canada.
For example, in my riding the federal government will continue
to support local projects and events through investments in
infrastructure and human resources development.
Since 1993, through federal programming initiatives, I have
facilitated an investment of more than $1 million for tourism in our
riding.
The federal government has supported things like a snowmobile
trail system to develop and lengthen our tourism season. We have
supported cultural facilities and tourism centres in addition to the
work that we have done with chambers of commerce through the
promotion of events and attractions.
Our work in the riding will continue because tourism is such an
important industry and such an important job source for
constituents. I believe the work of the tourism commission will
extend this support.
One of the commission's most important objectives, of course, is
to reduce the international tourism deficit. Part of that goal is to
divert some of the travellers from the United States and encourage
them instead to travel to our many and varied tourism regions here
in Canada. This is particularly important to the constituents in my
riding. The reliance on partnerships is key to the success of that
relationship.
5708
In addition to its success in Canada as a whole, I want to ensure
that the tourism commission works well in rural and remote
Canada. We need to take the small business tourism operators into
account with our policies and with the work of the commission. It
is important that our government facilitate the creation of
partnerships among local rural players like those in my riding.
Research and development in the tourism industry, new
technology, access to capital and infrastructure are the things that
will benefit rural tourism operators. The tourism commission will
play a key role in that development through undertakings that
expand on current initiatives and achievements to date.
I ask the parliamentary secretary what can constituents expect in
a rural riding like mine from the commission in this regard?
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities
Agency and Minister of Western Economic Diversification,
Lib.): Madam Speaker, the Canadian Tourism Commission was
created in February 1995. This public/private sector partnership
was able to take advantage of positive external conditions, for
example, expanding economies, fluctuating exchange rates and
structural developments to regain market share in key areas and
reduce the travel deficit.
In his February 27, 1996 response to the speech from the throne
the Prime Minister spoke of the CTC as a remarkable success
which will serve as a model of partnership between the various
levels of government and the private sector for the 21st Century.
In establishing the CTC the Prime Minister challenged the
industry to match the federal government's financial commitment
of $50 million annually within the three years of its creation.
Partners in 1995-96, the first year of operation, provided
approximately $40 million in co-funding programming. To date, in
1996-97, it appears that the target of exceeding $50 million in
partner funding will be met.
Results to date are impressive. Canada's travel account deficit
fell from $4 billion in 1994 to $3 billion in 1995, a decrease of 25
per cent.
In 1995 tourism employed 488,500 persons directly. This was a 2
per cent increase in tourism employment in 1995 over 1994.
Statistics Canada estimates that in 1995 tourism spending in
Canada amounted to $41.8 billion, up from $39 billion in 1994, a 7
per cent increase. In 1995, 17 million international tourists visited
Canada, up 6 per cent over 1994. Tourists from the United States
increased by 4 per cent to 13 million while tourists from overseas
countries rose by 14 per cent to 4 million.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 5.30 p.m., pursuant to an order
made on Friday, September 27, 1996, this House stands adjourned
until Monday, October 28, 1996, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 5.31 p.m.)