Nic Leblanc

[Quebec Sovereignty, March 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois promotes a sovereign Quebec. But we are being accused of trying to destroy Canada in the process. Nothing could be further from the truth. We have the future of Canada at heart, and both our countries stand to benefit from Quebec's sovereignty.

While it did not go into all of the many aspects of sovereignty, the recent Wood Gundy study at least had the great merit of stressing the fact that, from an accounting point of view, Quebec would benefit from sovereignty without Canada being hurt.

From 1995 on, the federal government will run an operating surplus, both for Quebec and for the rest of Canada. Achieving sovereignty in Quebec is no easy task, but now at least we know that all involved can do well for themselves, which means that sovereignty will benefit us all.

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out to the hon. member that a consensus was reached some years ago now in Quebec. The unions and the bosses, the Liberals and the present Parti Quebecois government, all have reached the consensus that manpower training is primarily a provincial matter and one that ought to be handled by Quebec, by the Quebec Department of Education.

What is being noticed now about the unemployment insurance program is that several billion dollars are being taken from unemployment insurance contributions, and no one yet knows where that money is going to end up. We see this as a new method of taxation, a tax in disguise. Employees are taxed, employers are

taxed, for unemployment insurance, but we are not yet clear what you are planning to do with that surplus money.

What we in Quebec are hoping-and Quebecers are unanimous in this, whether unionists, employers, the previous Liberal government or the present government-what we have been demanding for years is that this surplus in the unemployment insurance fund, made up of employee and employer contributions, be ploughed back into manpower training, and that such training be delivered and administered by the Quebec Department of Education, which is best placed to provide training tailored to the needs of our businesses and our unemployed workers.

Now, one more question. How can it be that both employers and employees are asking, since they are the contributors, why they are not the ones to administer unemployment insurance and manpower training funds? I would like to know what the minister's thoughts are on this.

[The Budget, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment for the hon. member for Outremont and Secretary of State. I heard him congratulate his great party, the Liberal Party, a great party that has existed for a very long time and has done wonders, and an extraordinary party that has set up many social institutions in Canada.

I would like to point out to him that he is partly right, but he neglected to mention one thing. When the Liberal government decided to put in place great social programs in areas such as health care-and it interfered in education and many other areas-it neglected to tell Canadians that all these programs would cost money. If that great party had been honest, it would have told the population at the same time that it would cost $2 billion, $3 billion, $20 billion a year to provide those services. But the Liberal government did not say so.

Between 1970 and 1984, Canada's debt increased by $175 billion. Sure, the Liberals gave all these wonderful services to the population, but the member for Outremont neglected to say how they gave them: by borrowing on the backs of Canadians. The great Liberal Party neglected to tell them that the government was providing those services with borrowed money. This is the source of problems.

I would like to remind him also that, in 1983, the finance minister, Mr. Lalonde, who was then the member for Outremont, his predecessor, ran a $45 billion deficit in his budget with revenues that were, at the time, less than $70 billion. This was unprecedented in the history of the world. No other political party in the world had created such a great disaster. Thus the member should remember that the current debt, a great disaster, was created entirely by his great Liberal Party. I know it, for I have been here for twelve years and I am very aware of what went on. Why are we still adding to that debt now?

The hon. member forgot to mention another element in the comparison between Canada and other industrialized countries. I checked the tables in the budget, and I found them misleading. As the hon. member mentioned in his speech, annual deficits are compared as a percentage of the gross domestic product. Our target is 3 per cent.

The hon. member neglected to mention that, in all the G-7 countries, when the debt or the deficit is considered as a percentage of the GDP, the provincial and municipal deficits are taken into account. To be a member of the European Economic Community, a country should not have a debt that represents more than 60 per cent of its GDP. Canada's total debt is 105 per cent of its GDP. This country is bankrupt, nobody is saying it, and we go on spending huge sums of money.

We are talking here about the Canadian debt, the federal debt, but we neglect to mention the accumulated debt of the provinces. In the other countries, the debts of states or provinces are included in the total debt. At this time, our real accumulated debt stands at 105 per cent of the GDP, and the deficit at 5.7 per cent. That is much too high.

If only the federal government decided some day to stop being stubborn and reorganized the way we run this country by decentralizing more powers to the provinces, it could be much more efficient, save billions of dollars and wipe out the deficit. But we are heading for a disaster because of this stubborn Liberal government, which wants to keep controlling everything from Ottawa. The hon. member for Outremont and secretary of state should be aware of that. He should openly tell the whole truth to Canadians, instead of half truths.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Drummond for her excellent speech. She discussed, of course, the speech from the throne, and she showed very clearly how we, Quebecers, and particularly Bloc Quebecois members, perceive this speech.

First, this speech from the throne is strictly for show. The government wants to give the impression that it seeks to make changes. It wants to impress Quebecers in particular by telling them that it will make great changes and share the management and the responsibility for certain areas.

Usually, a speech from the throne includes a new direction. In fact, that is the reason for such a speech. It is to set everything aside and get a fresh start. It is a new impetus, a new vision, a new way of doing things proposed by the government to revitalize the economy, stimulate employment and implement major initiatives. However, that is not the case here.

The day after the governor general delivered this nice speech from the throne in the Senate, the government tabled the same old obsolete bills that did not work in the first place.

This is pure hypocrisy, as we say in Quebec. When someone does not tell the truth, we say that person is a hypocrite. The speech from the throne misleads people because the government is bringing back the same old legislation.

My colleague also talked about unemployment insurance. We are told that, this year, the UI fund will get $5 billion more from workers and employers. Once again, the Canadian government finds a way to tax people even more, that is the workers and the employers.

In Quebec, for years now, both the Conseil du patronat and labour have been saying: "If we are the only ones to pay into the unemployment insurance system, why can we not manage it?" Why could employers and employees not manage the unemployment insurance fund? Why not, indeed? Why has the government not withdrawn from this area instead of cheating the people once again, using unemployment insurance as an excuse to put its hand on more money, as a new way of collecting taxes? This is outrageous.

It is the same thing with health care. My colleague mentioned health care. Of course, when the health care system was put in place, in the 1970s, the federal government had to interfere, saying: "I want to get involved". The provinces refused. The government persisted, in spite of the provinces' reluctance. Finally, the provinces told the government: "If you want to get involved, you will have to pay your share". The federal government decided to pay 50 per cent of the bill. Today, it only pays 28 per cent, and Quebec pays over 70 per cent.

The federal government keeps on telling us that it will decide how health care will be managed. Once again, this is unfair, this is unjust.

If the federal government had respected the Constitution, we would not be faced with the problems we have today. But the federal government keeps on encroaching; it does not respect the Canadian Constitution. This is why the Bloc Quebecois is here. This is why Quebecers elected over 50 sovereignist members to this House, because the federal government has never respected the Constitution.

It is always the same hypocrisy, as can be found in the throne speech, especially with regard to exclusive jurisdiction, which my colleague mentioned earlier. It is bad to speak about exclusivity but, at the same time, nobody really has any exclusivity because the federal government says it will deal with it, it will decide, it will set standards and if we do not respect those standards, it will not give us money. The great master, the boss of this country is the federal government.

This is not what we created. Two equal states, two equal peoples created a country at a point in time. Now we have to obey this great master who takes the liberty of writing in a throne speech a paragraph like this one:

The Government will not use its spending power to create new shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of a majority of the provinces.

What a contradiction! Who do they think they are anyway? Furthermore, the government adds:

Any new program will be designed so that non-participating provinces will be compensated, provided they establish equivalent or comparable initiatives.

My colleague, the member for Drummond, talked at length about that in her speech and since she is the health critic, I would like her to explain the meaning of that paragraph as far as health is concerned.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will add a few words to the remarks made by the member for Berthier-Montcalm about exclusive jurisdiction. When I read the speech from the throne, it made me laugh.

The federal government says that it: "-will not use its spending power to create new shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction- " that is what my colleague mentioned a few moments ago. "-without the consent of a majority of the provinces."

There is something wrong here. The people who wrote that did not know what they were talking about. It also says:

Any new program will be designed so that non-participating provinces will be compensated, provided they establish equivalent or comparable initiatives.

I looked it up in the Petit Robert and Petit Larousse dictionaries, and I found that "exclusive jurisdiction" excludes any sharing or participation, that it refers to a single person or group of persons or of things.

That means that if the Canadian government recognizes that a province has exclusive jurisdiction over an area, it is supposed to have complete control over it. It is just as if somebody told me: "I recognize this is your backyard. I know it is in your backyard. It is exclusively yours, you paid for it, it is yours. However, if the neighbours so wish, we will dig a pool in your backyard, and you will not have any choice. We will install a pool in it. Also, if you wish to do it on your own, you may not do so; we will help you dig your pool. But if you decide to share your pool with your neighbours, it will have to have a certain depth and a certain size".

It is very contradictory. I do not understand the speech from the throne when it speaks of exclusivity, and I appreciate what my colleague is trying to say when he speaks of exclusivity. It is incomprehensible. There is something wrong in the speech. The person who wrote it did not know what was meant by exclusivity.

In any case, there is a lot of hypocrisy in the government's approach towards the provinces. We must reread that. I wish my colleague could explain further what he really understands in this paragraph which I have just read. I find it incomprehensible.

[Speech From The Throne, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the optimism in the words of the member for Guelph-Wellington, they do not represent reality.

In Quebec, for example, reality means 11 per cent unemployment and far more people on welfare because unemployment insurance is harder to get, so there are more people in Quebec not working than in the past. That is reality.

While she is speaking about putting public finances on a healthier footing, I am thinking about the $32.7 billion deficit we will have again this year. Her words are fine, optimistic, encouraging, for those who do not know the real situation. The reality is exactly the opposite. The government has not succeeded in creating jobs. The government has not succeeded in cutting expenditures sufficiently to produce a normal deficit. I feel the hon. member ought to be more realistic in what she has to say, so as not to deceive the public who hear her words.

[Speech From The Throne, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments and questions I would like to put to the member for Winnipeg Transcona. First, he talked about always working for Canadian unity. I would simply remind him that an NDP member scuttled the Meech Lake accord.

I do not know what the NDP did to prevent its members from blocking the Meech Lake accord. Perhaps he could give us an answer. This is a sensitive question for an NDP member.

The government talks a lot about dialogue with the provinces in the speech from the throne. I would like to ask the hon. member for example what he thinks of the government's behaviour since October 30 and its statements, which are rather sources of provocation for Quebec.

What, for example, does he think of the Minister of Indian Affairs, who said that the Government of Quebec intended to use the army to clear native peoples out of Quebec after it became sovereign. Is this confrontation or dialogue? What does he think about Quebec being divisible? If Quebec is divisible, it could also take part of Ontario or New Brunswick. I would like to know what he thinks of that.

I would also like to know what he thinks of the fact that the speech from the throne intimates that the offers are like those in the Charlottetown accord, that the vision is the same or less than that of Charlottetown. It is less than Charlottetown. It is an affront to Quebec.

In my opinion, this is no dialogue. It is not an offer that can be easily accepted. It is, rather, a confrontation, because we turned down the Charlottetown accord in Quebec, because it did not provide enough for Quebec. English Canada turned it down, because it gave Quebec too much. I would like to ask him about this as well.

Of course, we in Quebec have said we wanted to destroy Canada. They say the separatists want to destroy Canada. I would like to ask him a question on this as well, because we have no intention of destroying Canada. On the contrary, we have extended an offer of economic and political partnership. I would like him to clarify his remarks somewhat in this regard.

[Speech From The Throne, February 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the floor. I wish to put a few questions to the hon. member. He spoke in particular of the referendum results in Quebec.

Of course, we lost the referendum with 49,4 per cent of the vote. The government, the Prime Minister, keep on repeating that we should accept our defeat, and the Canadien government recognizes that we have lost.

If the Canadian government recognizes that we lost the referendum, should it not also recognize that with 51,4 per cent of the vote, Quebecers would have had a legitimate victory?

There is another striking example. Would the province of Newfoundland, having decided to join the Canadian confederation in a referendum, also be free to leave it in another referendum? Would that not be logic? I wonder why there are these great debates to say that you need 60, 65 or 70 per cent of the vote to leave the Canadian confederation. It looks completely ludicrous to me. You need 50 per cent plus one. This is the democratic rule we work with. This is our culture and democracy as we know it.

I would ask the hon. member to elaborate a bit on the matter because the Liberal government seems to be hard-of-hearing on this issue.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 12th, 1995]

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would have a lot more to say, but I think that what I just mentioned will certainly enlighten Quebecers.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable interest that I rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-110 concerning a veto for Quebec.

You are aware that, during the referendum, the Prime Minister spoke of major change and promises. What is odd, immediately after the referendum, is that the Prime Minister is saying he made little promises and that he has just acted on his little promises.

As regards Quebec's veto and the concept of distinct society, it would be a good idea perhaps to remember the people of Quebec have a motto, which is: "Je me souviens", or "I remember". We often have to remind the Prime Minister of Canada, a Quebecer himself, to remember a little bit of Quebec's history. We must also remind Quebecers that they have a history that they must never forget.

Quebecers have been demanding their rights and privileges since Confederation, when they were misled. This Confederation was decided on without Quebecers being asked for their opinion, without a referendum, probably with the help of a few Quebecers who were richly rewarded afterwards. Between 1936 and 1940, Mr. Duplessis was already saying that, of course, Quebec had to "repatriate its booty". The Union nationale, a party of Quebec nationalists, was created as early as 1936. Mr. Duplessis managed to stay in power for almost 20 years by repeating that the federal government must not be allowed to encroach on Quebec's jurisdiction. Then, in the 1960s, Mr. Lesage was elected by talking about being "Masters in our own house".

You must remember that these slogans were very important; Mr. Lesage, a former deputy minister in Ottawa, came to Quebec City after realizing that Quebec was being taken for a ride. He led the Liberal Party to power with a slogan that went like this: "Masters in our own house". A little later, Mr. Johnson senior became Premier as leader of the Union nationale by calling for "Equality or independence". In 1976, Mr. Lévesque won the election on a sovereignty-association platform. As you can see, this is nothing new.

I wish to remind him today that this is nothing new and that the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois are not the only forces behind the recent referendum. It has a long history. In 1980, Mr. Lévesque lost his referendum because of Mr. Trudeau's promises that they would patriate the Constitution and amend it in line with Quebecers' legitimate needs.

Again, this promise was not kept, since the Constitution was patriated and amended without Quebec's consent. This is somewhat reminiscent of the Prime Minister's promises in the last referendum.

I was elected here for the first time in 1984 with a mandate for national reconciliation. We wanted to reconcile all that. From early 1985 all the way up to 1987, we worked very hard on what was called the Meech Lake project, which met with the provincial premiers' approval in 1987. But since it had been decided that the consent of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the popula-

tion was required to amend the Constitution, consent had to be sought. The provinces were given three years to approve the agreement signed by the premiers in 1987.

You will recall that, in 1990, the Meech Lake accord was rejected, by English Canada in particular, once again with the support of the current Prime Minister, who made every effort to have it fail, in co-operation with premier Wells of Newfoundland and Ms. Carstairs, who was leader of the Liberal Party in Saskatchewan at the time and has since been appointed to the Senate. She was rewarded for doing that.

All this to show that, once again, the current Prime Minister was against it, because his only goal at the time was to become the next Prime Minister of Canada. He made every effort to ensure that the Meech Lake project fail because, had it worked, it would has been to the credit of the Conservatives. Since they could not allow that to be, the current Prime Minister, then preparing to become the leader of the Liberal Party, did his best to have this project fail, so that he could have a chance of becoming the Prime Minister of Canada. That is what we must bear in mind.

When the Meech Lake accord failed, they panicked, so to speak, wondering what to do. That is when the commissions started, the Castonguay-Dobbie commission and all the others. There was also Keith Spicer's travelling commission. That cost us millions. At the same time, Quebec got into the act and established the Bélanger-Campeau commission. That was the most serious exercise ever conducted in Quebec since Confederation.

More than 600 briefs were submitted to the commission. Over 200 witnesses were heard, and 55 experts were hired by the Quebec Liberal government of the time. The commission came to the conclusion that, to thrive and grow, while also preserving its culture and its language, Quebec needed greater powers, more than 20 real powers, to achieve its destiny as a nation.

During that period, as I mentioned earlier, the Castonguay-Dobbie and Spicer federal commissions were working on a project called the Charlottetown proposal. A referendum was held in 1992 and, unfortunately, the project was still not quite complete. It was called a draft and it was truly that.

In spite of all that, English Canada turned down the proposal because it felt that Quebecers would be getting too much. As for Quebecers, they felt that they would not get enough. So, everybody voted against the proposal, though not for the same reasons.

As you can see, it is not possible to reach an agreement. There are two irreconcilable views in this country that must be acknowledged. Following that referendum, Quebecers elected a sovereignist federal party, the Bloc Quebecois, in 1993. Out of 75 MPs, they sent 53 Bloc members to Ottawa. Let us not forget that. Then, the following year, another sovereignist party, the Parti Quebecois, was elected in Quebec. Finally, a Quebec referendum was held in 1995. This is when the Prime Minister promised major changes. But now he comes up with minor changes and he has the nerve to say: "Here are the small changes I promised you". However, during the referendum, Quebecers were led to believe that there would be major changes.

Unfortunately, we lost that referendum. However, 49.4 per cent of Quebecers supported sovereignty. The two sides were literally neck and neck. Sixty per cent of Quebec's French speaking voters supported sovereignty, but this is not enough to achieve our destiny.

As I said, in 1980, Mr. Trudeau promised major constitutional changes. Quebecers believed him, but he did just the opposite of what he had said. In the 1995 referendum, the current Prime Minister also promised major changes. Everybody was expecting great constitutional amendments. But instead, all we get are not even amendments, just a House of Commons bill, Bill C-110, which gives Quebec a veto and recognizes Quebec as a distinct society. This is a far cry from constitutional amendments.

We know full well that a bill can be amended at any time. Even the present government could amend this act tomorrow morning, next week, next month. The Liberal government could be replaced and its successor could decide to change this constitutional amendment. This does not mean anything. This is an affront to the people of Quebec.

Moreover, five regions are given a veto: British Columbia, the western provinces, Ontario, Quebec and the maritimes. A veto for Quebec would mean, for instance, that Quebec has a veto on account of it being a people who is a minority in Canada. The Quebec people must have a veto. But if it is also given to everybody else, it does not mean anything any more.

The Prime Minister is once again trying to deceive Quebecers, to trick them. He keeps on repeating: "We want to give Quebecers a veto, we want to recognize Quebec as a distinct society". But at the same time, he does not mention the he is giving a veto to the others.

Essentially, what this really means is that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party have decided that there will never be any constitutional amendment. By giving a veto to five regions, you make sure that there will always be a region which will not agree to the amendments put forward by the federal government or somebody else. There will always be obstacles and the Prime Minister is deceiving the Quebec people trying to make them believe that they are being given veto power. By giving veto power to everybody he is not willing to amend the Constitution. It is as simple as that.

It is a trap and I am telling Quebecers that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party of Canada are trying to deceive them. If we are voting against this veto power and against this distinct society it is because it is a trap set for Quebecers. I want to say that clearly to Quebecers today.

It is an insult to Quebecers and they should remember the little story I just told, because we tend to forget it.

At the present time, what the Prime Minister is doing is making fools of Quebecers. He believes they are not too bright. He seems to think that Quebecers have a short memory.

I remind the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party that in Quebec the motto on the license plates is "Je me souviens", I remember. I often tell my constituents: Never forget to look at the car in front of you, its license plate probably says: "Je me souviens". We should remember our history, it is not that long. If we do, maybe we will not be duped so easily.

During the last referendum, people in English Canada panicked because polls were saying the yes side was leading. They were totally panicked. Why? Because the Prime Minister of Canada had made these people believe that there was no danger whatsoever that Quebecers would ever vote for sovereignty. Yet, it was close. It was very close and I find it regrettable that the Prime Minister had concealed the Quebec reality from the rest of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, you are indicating that my time is up. Is it, really?