GOVERNMENT ORDERS

SUPPLY

ALLOTTED DAY-MONTREAL

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.

(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?

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?

(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.

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.

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.

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''.

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

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.

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

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

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:

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-

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.

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.

[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

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''.

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''.

[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''.

[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

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.

[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-

That this House recognize the region of Montreal as the economic mainspring of Quebec society and-

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,

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.

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.

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''.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

_____________________________________________