Ghislain Lebel

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague, the member for Shefford, talked about my riding, Chambly, a little while ago. Two weeks ago, before the Easter recess, I said in this House that I did not understand why a number of voters of my colleague's riding were transferred to mine, and why the population of my riding increased from 75,000 to 110,000 while the population of his riding decreased from 110,000 to 75,000. I still do not understand.

As my friend from the Reform Party said, are we proceeding with this readjustment simply because the act says that we have to do it every ten years? Are we doing this for the fun of it, because the act says we have to do it once every ten years, without asking ourselves if it is appropriate, if it is good or not? That is not important, just do it.

The member for Maskinongé-Montcalm just said that his new riding will be full of holes. On the South Shore of Montreal, and I assume no one did it on purpose, this electoral redistribution, by a curious coincidence, will result in the Liberal party standing to gain another riding in the next election because on the South Shore or in the Eastern Townships the riding of Saint-Lambert will have a strong contingent of new Canadians. But I assume that is only a coincidence and not a calculated Machiavellian act.

All of us in this House, like the member for Beauséjour, who is always flashing that smile that we all like, or like the members of the Reform Party, did not suddenly become members of Parliament. Before being elected to this House, you must work a long time, get involved in your riding, and meet your constituents. You know, it could be that our door-to-door campaign for the last election was only the end of a cycle. But I am sure that the member for Beauséjour and all the other members of this House have spent many years-10 or 15 years or more-criss-crossing their ridings and meeting disadvantaged groups, social groups, unions, employers in some cases, fishermen for people in the maritimes.

We did not become members of Parliament by chance. We were chosen, elected and sent here by the people. And by constantly rubbing shoulders with these people, which frequently happens almost instinctively, the members here present have embraced or somewhat adopted their constituents' philosophy, so they generally come here with a precise idea of the philosophy or opinion or direction that they convey in their respective

riding. Making an electoral division just because the Elections Act says it has to be done every ten years seems to ignore that aspect of the job of a member of Parliament.

In my case, for example, I will be called to represent between 30,000 and 35,000 new constituents, whom I do not know, in municipalities-I heard earlier my colleague in front of me mention municipalities like Béthanie and so on-where I never set foot in my life. And overnight, I will have to represent these people. There are group dynamics emerging in our society. People get used to living together, they arrive at a consensus and convey it to their member of Parliament if he or she has not already perceived it naturally.

In my case, I am afraid that I do not know what people whom I do not know might want. And if we are to simply change numbers, I am sure that my colleague from Shefford would be a much better representative of these people than I, because I simply do not know these municipalities, these RCMs, these potential constituents.

Of course, the Bloc Quebecois will make it its duty to represent everybody in Quebec. But the fact remains that for specific or particular aspects, the member for Shefford, who is already there, would certainly do a better job than I, because of the group dynamics and the thinking of people in these regions. He would be able to pinpoint what should be done in that riding, whereas for me, as a new member to these people, by the time I go around and get acquainted with everybody's problems, by the time I get to know their municipalities and the problems of these municipalities and these RCMs, I am afraid these people will suffer the consequences. Therefore, I do not agree with the argument that democracy requires that the electoral boundaries be readjusted every ten years, no matter what comes out of the process.

The county of Chambly which I represent and which has about 75,000 constituents is relatively dense. Mr. Speaker, you said earlier that you travel a lot, especially in the county of Shefford. Unfortunately, I never had the pleasure to see you in the county of Chambly, but I hope that you went through it. If not, I invite you to visit it.

The Richelieu River runs right through my county from one end to the other. My county is the heartland of the Patriots. Therefore, I am not the first independentist mentioned in the House of Commons. Incidentally, I was informed recently that five independentists from Beloeil had lost their lives during the battle of the Patriots, in 1837. These people, some Préfontaines and some Lafrances from Beloeil, are from my county. The reason I mention the period of 1837 is because these people live together and know each other. They were builders. They built bridges on the famous Richelieu river. They built churches, they built their parish. These people are used to living together. There is a spirit of community among the residents of a same region. It is an unwritten tradition, but it exists all the same.

When you add 35,000 new electors whom he does not know to an MP, you distort the group dynamics, to the detriment not of the MP or the federal government, but of the constituents concerned. Now if you want to talk about more practical things, take telephone communications.

In my riding, things are not as bad. From one end of my riding to the other, people cannot call one another direct and have to make a long-distance call. As far as I am concerned, as a member of Parliament, if I want to be able to serve my constituents and be available, I have my office in the middle of the riding where I can call everywhere without high charges to my government, meaning the taxpayers. Also, my constituents can call me from anywhere in the riding without having to pay long-distance bills. For some people, specifically older people, long-distance charges are significant and unforseen expenses, particularly when they have to speak to their elected representative, which can penalize them.

So imagine the surprise when I was told that people in my riding would have to constantly use Bell Canada long-distance service in order to communicate with their elected representative. That could be very expensive for them. You could argue that it is only a small technical problem. But when we are talking about the representation of members of Parliament, there is a risk in doing that, because we could become less and less representative through such occurrences. This redistribution of the electoral map could prevent members of Parliament from doing their job. This is my first concern.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the riding of Chambly I represent has an area of 384 square kilometres. In the last election, it had 76,204 voters; today, that number is down to 76,203, since I spend most of my time here. It was and still is a mostly urban riding that straddles the Richelieu River from Beloeil-Saint-Hilaire to Chambly, including Saint-Bruno, a beautiful city we are proud of.

In my riding, the proposed electoral boundaries readjustment would add 14 small, rather rural municipalities and remove a large one, Saint-Bruno, that would be integrated into the riding of Saint-Hubert. The riding would gain 14 municipalities, and would extend almost as far as Granby in the Eastern Townships.

The problem is, first of all, there is no rush. We can take the time to debate these issues and to understand what is behind the changes proposed by the elections commission.

In my case, I go from 76,200 voters to a new riding with 110,000 voters. But my neighbour from whom I took 14 municipalities goes from a riding of 110,000 voters to one with about 76,000 voters. We merely exchange voters without gaining anything at the administrative level. On the contrary, I think we stand to lose.

What will it be like for the member representing that riding the day after the new electoral map comes into effect? In my riding, which has an area of only 384 square kilometres, all my predecessors had their offices in the middle of the riding to avoid long-distance charges. But after readjustment, the member for the new riding will need at least two offices and will be practically unable to make calls without incurring high long-distance charges.

Some would reply, "The government pays for that". Yes, when the member initiates the call, but when it is the voters who call, they complain that they cannot reach their member. They can reach him but only if they pay charges that can be quite high depending on their complaints. If only for that reason, I think it is a bad idea.

Furthermore, what is proposed does not take into account, I think, the communities' desire to live together because they are used to living together. Over the years, places like Saint-Bruno, Saint-Hilaire, Beloeil, Chambly-the smallest communities have a population of 15,000 or 16,000, while the largest have between 30,000 and 35,000 residents-have developed trade links as well as cultural and other exchanges involving volunteers, regional county municipalities, etc. These municipalities have learned to live together and have become very good at it. And just for the sake of it, we are now going to change riding boundaries to no one's benefit.

As I said earlier, my constituency will increase to 110,000 voters but that of my neighbour will go down to 76,000. What did we gain from all this? I would have understood how, if my neighbour had encroached on someone else and so on, we would have fiddled with the ridings to distribute the population more or less equally among the ridings, but that is not the case.

So I have some trouble understanding why the electoral commission is so eager to impose on us new boundaries that do not reflect local realities and the desire of people to live together, as in the riding I represent; that said, of course, with respect for the people who will join our riding. Shifting riding boundaries around just for the fun of it was not the main purpose of the electoral commission.

As for Quebec, we cannot talk about redistribution without talking about Quebec and its future. This morning, a poll published in the Eastern Townships, on which the riding of Chambly abuts, reports that the idea of sovereignty is supported by a strong majority in the Eastern Townships; the survey says 53 per cent.

At the beginning of my speech, I told you that the house was not on fire and I think that the Liberal Party of Canada has understood that and said to itself: "Better not go ahead too quickly with those changes. Quebec will probably separate in a year or a year and a half, so we would have done all this boundary adjustment for nothing. Better soft-pedal it, if not stop it, and we will see later". I think that is wise on the part of the government. I commend it for that and I thank it for saving the taxpayers in my riding and all Canadians a fairly considerable amount of money.

This morning, we voted against a motion. I hope that you will understand what we on this side of the House were against was the rather high-handed way in which they decided to end this debate. Certain parliamentary principles are dear to us, whether we are independentists or angry federalists, and wanting to cut off discussion and debate on a subject like redistribution which is important for many people is something that my party and I could not support, you understand, and that is why we voted against it. But tonight, for the reasons I explained to you, of course we will support the motion of the party in power, which is a motion from a party that understands things, which sees the obvious and knows that the Canadian federation as it now exists probably does not have much longer to live.

Based on the poll I have here, which is encouraging for my political option, we realize that the strongest bastions of federalism in the Eastern Townships have been shattered like toothpicks, so that is encouraging for my party and me.

With that, I tell you that I will vote on second reading of this Bill C-18 for extending the mandate, that is for postponement, like my colleagues who spoke before me.

[Constitution Act, 1982, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am truly outraged by the motion of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-De-Grâce.

A brief overview of the events of 1982 will make it clear to him that Quebec has always been opposed to the unilateral patriation of the Constitution and to the passage of laws overseas by a foreign country for the purpose of muzzling Quebec and taking away from it the only powers it had left as far as language was concerned.

In the National Assembly, Quebecers in both parties opposed these measures. Now, twelve years later, is the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce trying to hammer the final nail into the coffin of the French language in Quebec? I have to say that this is not very far from the truth.

Quebec will never agree to the removal of such measures as the notwithstanding clause. All the more so because at the present time, the provisions of Quebec's education laws are being extended. Five laws are currently being debated in the National Assembly and the notwithstanding clause will be continued because it reflects the very essence of Quebecers and their existence in Quebec. If the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce has not yet understood this after 25 or 30 years in politics, then I wonder what he is doing here.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a negotiable issue as far as we are concerned. Nor will it ever be. I do not need 10 minutes to tell you that it will never fly in Quebec. If we have to, we will fight you on this tooth and nail.

[Committees Of The House, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations. If the House gives its consent, I intend to ask that the report be concurred in later on today.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose that the first report, which has just been tabled in this House, be concurred in today.

(Motion agreed to.)

[National Mountain, River And Village Competition, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am especially proud to announce to this House the launching of the fourth national "mountain, river and village" competition, which will be held in my riding of Chambly.

Many painters from all regions of Quebec, from Ontario and from the United States will take part in this competitive exhibition, which just three years ago was only local. Two hundred and fifty paintings will be selected for the exhibition, which will be held from September 23 to 27.

I join our association of popular painters, the town of Mont-Saint-Hilaire and all of Quebec in encouraging Quebec's artistic potential, following the example of Ozias Leduc and Paul-Émile Borduas, who were born in the region.

I therefore invite you to see this outstanding exhibition of works by our painters and to share their talent and their vision of the world.

[Canadian Foreign Policy, March 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I was most interested to hear what the minister of immigration had to say. I am sure that the people of Chambly and the people of Quebec and Canada are thinking along lines that are not too far removed from the points the minister is trying to make.

In this House and elsewhere, unfortunately, the minister is asking questions and I hope he is willing to hear the answers or at least our attempts at providing answers because in our society, there are some subjects that are taboo. Today, we cannot talk about capital punishment or immigration or other topics that are not considered politically correct in our society, even if we just want to obtain information and perhaps come up with the same solutions or objectives as the minister.

The minister asked us some questions. He said: "Canadians", and this includes Quebecers until further notice, "must take a position and do some serious thinking". However, when we do that, we are not always politically correct.

The minister approached this subject by tugging at our heart strings. Of course there are some sad situations in the world and there are people who really have a lot of problems. However, I would have appreciated it if, for once, the minister had not played on our emotions, because at times we have let our emotions go beyond what we could afford. I wish that, for once, the minister would show us some figures and prove his point this way, and I am sure he would succeed, but I wish he would stop playing on our emotions and use scientific and economic data to

give us some hard facts that prove what he thinks and what I think, namely that these are issues that will benefit Canada. There is no doubt that immigration benefits Canada. Our country is where it is today thanks to immigration.

However, to satisfy people who sometimes argue on the basis of false premises, I would have liked the minister to explain from the mathematical point of view how he reached this conclusion.

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I speak out against what the hon. member opposite said about duplication being the provinces' fault. It has been more than 50 years since he attended high school and he needs a refresher course.

I wonder if the sharing of constitutional jurisdiction has any meaning for him. Originally, four provinces agreed to share certain powers, but never ever did they think that they would give up their own powers which belonged to them and which they needed for their own development within the Canadian Confederation. So there is something wrong with that.

If there is duplication, it is because the federal government has always been meddling. The provinces did not middle in the national defence of Canada, the provinces did not meddle in foreign trade. It is downright wrong. We have been hearing that since this morning, so we should set the record straight.

As for job creation, 99 per cent of Canadian businesses have fewer than four employees. There are 1,114,000 self-employed people who work for their own business; that is not a lot. They play with figures to suggest that taxes for those people will be reduced from 28 to 12 per cent, when in reality their tax rate is 12 per cent. Those people have an awful time making ends meet.

Does the minister know that while he was telling us such nonsense, the national debt is costing us $75,000 a minute, and for the four or five minutes he took to tell us such rubbish, we are some $275,000 worse off than when he started to speak? He should be aware of that.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the previous speaker managed to convince himself after the fact, as his government is now trying to do, but he would like to convince us that the decision that was made was the right one.

I think that the government lowered taxes on cigarettes because it did not want to tackle the real problem and stop the distribution of contraband goods on the territory implicitly affected by this bill; instead of dealing with the smugglers themselves, they went after the product. Except that it will be easy to replace that product with another, like alcohol, drugs or cocaine. To justify themselves, they said that they asked the commissioner of the RCMP, who told them to cut taxes. It is not up to the commissioner of the RCMP to make the laws in this

government, and you also need the political will to enforce the laws. When there is no will to enforce the laws, we end up with a bill like this one.

The government shot into its own net with this. There can be no solution to this problem as long as there is no political will to intervene and break up the distribution networks for cigarettes, drugs, popcorn or whatever. We must break up the distribution networks. That is what the government did not have the courage to do.

I would now ask the hon. member who just spoke if he has a personal solution to suggest to his government to break up the distribution networks. That is where the problem lies.

[Winter Olympics, February 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the minister to tell me the hours that Canada House is open. I believe that the Gorecki brothers are entitled to an apology from the minister, at the very least, because they went there and were not even received as they should have been.

[Winter Olympics, February 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

On Friday, February 4, just before the Gorecki brothers left to represent Canada in snow sculpting at the Lillehammer Games, I received assurance from the minister's office that the Canadian delegation would receive the Gorecki brothers with all the respect due them. Such was not the case, however, and were it not for the generosity of the Norwegian people, the Gorecki brothers would have spent their time in Norway out in the snow.

Can the minister explain to us how he, warm and comfortable in his suite, could let such a faux-pas happen, knowing his legendary diplomatic courtesy?