Jean H. Leroux

[Resumption Of Debate On Address, November 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Jonquière.

In 1994, the first throne speech by the present government made no mention of changing the Canadian federation. The Prime Minister had stated that he wanted to put constitutional quarrels on ice. Those are his words.

It is obvious today that he has changed his mind. In the throne speech of February 27, 1996, which we are discussing today, the government justifies the proposed actions by referring to the desire for change expressed by Quebecers in the referendum, stating that "this desire for change is broadly shared across Canada".

Here are a few of the changes announced by the federal Liberals in the last throne speech, which they have been attempting to implement ever since, without any great success, I might add. First of all, the government proposes to limit federal spending power in areas that are exclusively provincial. We are in agreement in principle, up to that point.

The conditions of application are where it starts to get complicated. They require new cost shared programs to have the consent of the majority of the provinces.

First of all, the government is not announcing its withdrawal from areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, as Quebec has called for. On the contrary, the federal government is imposing its right to interfere by setting certain limits, including consent by the majority of provinces. It requires the consent of six provinces before accepting implementation of any new program.

This limitation of spending power is much less than the proposal contained in the Charlottetown accord. In it, the federal government was required to have the agreement of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population. In addition, this limitation was entrenched in the Constitution.

Today, the federal government makes no mention whatsoever of putting this into the Constitution. It could be changed at the whim of some subsequent federal government, like any mere law. The provinces will never accept such an offer.

The most flagrant example is that of the daycare centres which the Liberals wanted to put into place. Although this program is included in the famous red book of the last campaign, the federal government has never managed to obtain the consent of the majority of the provinces. So, in order to justify the non-fulfilment of this campaign promise, the Prime Minister is dumping the blame onto the provinces, saying they are the ones turning it down. It is their fault because they cannot reach agreement. How did the Prime Minister expect to fulfil this campaign promise, knowing full well that the provinces would never accept such an offer?

The Prime Minister speaks of changing Canadian federation but he could not have done a worse job of it. Another change in the Canadian federation proposed by the Prime Minister is to entrench the concept of distinct society and a veto for all in the Constitution.

First of all, the distinct society proposed by the federal government was less than Meech and less than Charlottetown. To the Government of Quebec, the distinct society concept is obsolete.

Any new negotiations with Canada must, from now on, be from people to people, from nation to nation.

Furthermore, we will never go along with the compromise solution proposed in a bogus bill or some strategy to recognize Quebec as no more than the homeland of French language and culture. This interpretation means nothing at all. It provides no constitutional guarantees and certainly no legal powers. The federal Liberals would have been better off proposing nothing at all.

On top of that, there will now be a regional veto, snuggled through the House in Bill C-110. This bill takes us from bad to worse. To bring about any constitutional change at all, the federal government will no longer need the consent of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population but all the provinces. That is some constitutional change. There will be no more constitutional changes. It will be impossible.

Because of these recent changes made by the Prime Minister and the federal Minister of Intergovernmental affairs, from now on it will be impossible for Quebec to make any constitutional arrangements without the prior consent of all Canadian provinces.

Contrary to Quebec's stated expectations, other Canadians consider that if Quebecers remain in Canada, they should be just like other Canadians and submit to majority rule, without any special rights or status. To a Quebecer, this is unthinkable. All efforts of the past 30 years were focused on letting Quebecers make their own decisions on a number of important issues within the Canadian federation.

In the sixties, Liberal Premier Jean Lesage said we should be "maître chez nous", and his successor, Daniel Johnson senior of the Union nationale said it was equality or independence. Another Liberal Premier, the late Robert Bourassa, spent more than 15 years asking for cultural sovereignty and then distinct society.

Unfortunately, all these attempts at constitutional change were to fail. English Canada's no became progressively louder. Today, the Chrétien government is trying to make us go through this again. He keeps saying that everything is fine, everything is all right, but the results show the opposite is true. He even says he has done enough, and that now the ball is in the other court.

In spite of all these failures, undeniably, Quebecers want an independent Quebec within a strong Canada. That this phrase has became famous is no accident. There is an element of truth in it. Even if we have been unable to agree on fundamental political issues for the past 30 years, we and Canadians have established important economic ties. The jobs of hundreds of thousands of Canadians depend on Quebec, and vice versa.

In this connection, I would like to discuss a matter that is very important to me, and I am sure, could be instrumental in settling all constitutional quarrels once and for all. In its plan for sovereignty, Quebec is proposing to the rest of Canada a natural and democratic change that would lead to a new partnership agreement between our two peoples.

The plan for Quebec favours economic association with the rest of Canada, in order to maintain the unfettered mobility of goods, services, capital and individuals. Just think, every 15 minutes we in Quebec buy one million dollars' worth of goods manufactured in the rest of Canada. That is why it is important for both parties to maintain these economic ties.

The plan for Quebec also specifies that the Canadian dollar will remain Quebec's legal currency. That is the most beneficial solution for both Quebec and Canada, especially because of the significant volume of trade between the two states.

According to the latest estimates, trade between Quebec and Canada is worth over $65 billion, including close to $50 billion with Ontario alone. This would be a concrete way of ensuring trade stability for both Canada and Quebec.

Canada's economic space will be maintained, because it is in the interest of Quebec and the rest of Canada to maintain it. It could be managed by joint organizations, including a council of representatives from both parties, who would discuss issues of common interest. A joint tribunal would be responsible for settling disputes, including trade disputes.

There could also be a partnership council made up of Quebec and Canadian ministers equally, as well as a parliamentary assembly of delegates from both sovereign states. These two institutions would allow us to decide to act jointly in other areas and to share our resources.

The major difference with the current situation is that we would always have the choice of acting either independently or jointly with Canada, within the partnership, and neither party would be able to impose its rules and its views on the other. That is what a true partnership means.

To achieve this goal, we, of course, need the agreement of the rest of Canada. As far as the basic elements of the economic association are concerned, the vast majority of English-Canadians think an arrangement with Quebec is inevitable. It would be in everyone's interest to build an economic and political partnership in which there will be minimal friction and maximum co-operation to our mutual advantage, an environment in which we can all aspire to a better future.

That is the kind of arrangement the federal government should seriously consider, instead of proposing all sorts of initiatives that

are doomed to failure and dragging out the dreadful constitutional debate.

[Veterans Week, October 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in this House today, in my capacity as the Bloc Quebecois critic for veterans affairs, to acknowledge, as is tradition, Remembrance Day and Veterans' Week, which will run from November 3 to November 11.

The least we can do is to set some time aside every year to remember the men and women who served in the two world wars and in the Korean conflict.

From the bottom of our hearts, we thank all those who served at the front, the sailors and airmen from all regions of Canada, the members of the merchant navy, the nurses, and all the men and women who risked or gave their lives to overcome tyranny.

Need we remind the House that over 100,000 young Canadians and Quebecers died in the two world wars, while hundreds of others were killed in Korea and the various peacekeeping missions?

Unfortunately, many bloody conflicts are still raging around the globe. I cannot help but think about the serious consequences of the conflict between the Tutsi rebels and the Zairian army. Over 1 million refugees are caught in the middle. Yet, the international community seems totally incapable of mobilizing and intervening between the warring factions. Worst of all, the humanitarian agencies had to leave the area immediately. The consequences are extremely serious. We may be powerless to prevent another disaster for humanity.

If I mention the tragedy unfolding in Zaire, it is because I am also thinking of all those who assume the responsibility for maintaining peace in the world, particularly the Canadian peacekeepers. As you know, more than 2,000 Canadian peacekeepers are currently deployed overseas in places like Bosnia and Haiti.

Today we remember the sacrifices made by those to whom we owe this legacy of freedom and democracy, and by all those who are now working for peace.

The extensive human losses and the horrible suffering endured by all the people caught in these endless wars defy understanding. What can we say to the widows and orphans, the brothers and sisters who lost loved ones forever?

All these brave people fought, all these lives were sacrificed so there would be no more wars. So that future generations would be spared all this pain and suffering.

Again, I join with all my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois in expressing our sincere gratitude to all those who gave their lives and, of course, to all the survivors of these tragedies. Let us not forget there are still many survivors who deserve all our admiration and support.

In this regard, I condemn this government's lack of consideration for the members of the merchant marine. Their concerns must be considered a priority. We must make every effort to ensure that this government pays due attention to the views of merchant marine veterans and holds proper consultations with the coalition representing them.

Having said that, I will conclude my speech by saying how much the Bloc Quebecois wants to honour the memory of our veterans and pay them a fitting tribute.

[The Canadian Armed Forces, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, francophones in Canada and Quebec are sick and tired of hearing people say it is always a challenge to give us our fair share. The minister's chief historian also concluded that francophone officers always have to take most of their training in English. I may remind the minister that it was his government, the Liberal government, that

closed the Saint-Jean military college. That is certainly not going to reverse the trend.

What explanation does the minister have for a comment by his historian that the army never wanted to have francophones in the intelligence sector, for instance? Is it or is it not true that francophones are systematically kept out of certain strategic positions in the Canadian army?

[The Canadian Armed Forces, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. The fact that francophones are consistently under-represented within the armed forces is common knowledge. We have known that for quite some time. What we did not know is that the army's chief historian concluded recently in a book of over 700 pages on the subject, and I quote: "If there is a problem, it is perhaps due to the fact that there is no motivation".

Does the new Minister of National Defence endorse the conclusions of his chief historian as to the cause of consistent under-representation of francophones with the forces, and if so, what does he intend to do about this problem?

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the Department of National Defence is one of the largest federal departments, with a work force of about 25,000 civilian employees, a regular force of about 67,000 military personnel, a reserve of about 23,000 people and an annual budget of almost $10.5 billion.

In the last few years, the minister has been confronted with constant internal changes that concern me a lot and, I am sure, Canadian and Quebec taxpayers as well.

It is true that National Defence went through a program of massive work force reduction and put in place a program of restructuring its command and internal control, due to the budget cuts that were imposed. But what concerns me mostly is the fact that all these changes seem to be accompanied by a chronic leadership void at the highest levels of the military hierarchy.

I was reading this week a document from the auditor general of Canada, dated February 1994, concerning the transition within National Defence. Some allegations in it are confirming my concerns.

On page 5 of that document, one can read, and I quote: "We found persistent deficiencies in the department's accountability systems and reports to Parliament. We noted inconsistencies in data concerning unit combat readiness and we expressed concerns relating to data control in the central performance management system."

On the next page, the auditors found out that the largest component of the reserve, that is the militia, had no performance standards. We learned that the department was providing very few data to Parliament about the reserve performance and that the information given could sometimes be misleading.

Consequently, with this type of situation that has been going on for many years within the armed forces, how could there be no excesses? How can we make sure that officers in charge can control the few individuals who are damaging the morale and the image of our troops abroad and at home?

How can we prevent scandals such as the Somalia affair or the cover-up operation orchestrated by the higher echelons of the military structure?

I would like the government to explain to me what it plans on doing to restore the credibility of our troops, of our military interventions and our peacekeeping operations abroad. What measures does the new Minister of National Defence plan to take to prevent the corruption and abuse problems which not only tarnish the department's image, but undermine the morale of the troops?

The government must be responsible. It must undertake as fast as possible a cleaning operation within our armed forces. It must not do what it just did, which is wait until the scandals come from all directions before acting under pressure from public opinion and negative polls.

It is the government's duty to have authority over its generals, and all of its senior officers responsible for our security. The taxpayers are entitled to respect. Every year, we pay more than $10.5 billion to maintain a disciplined institution, and it strikes me as normal for those responsible for its administration to be answerable for their actions.

Does the government have plans for another cross-Canada survey to find out what it needs to do now to reinstate a code of conduct in our armed services personnel abroad? Does the government have plans for another survey to find out what it needs to do to get those who manage the Department of National Defence to administer the billions of dollars entrusted to them with decency?

In the interest of transparency and accountability, will the Prime Minister shoulder his own responsibilities and call for the Minister of National Defence to rectify his code of ethics and to thoroughly scrutinize the events which are a constant source of scandal, day after day?

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to talk about the building of the St. Lawrence seaway. In the fifties, Canada and the United States decided to build the seaway. It had a negative impact on Montreal. It killed its economy.

As you know, Quebec taxpayers paid their fair share of the seaway. At the end of the day, it cost Montreal its competitive edge.

To conclude, I would like to say, since I am running out of time, that it is with initiatives such as these that the federal government has been undermining the role of Montreal as a transportation hub. We have lots of practical suggestions to offer-as my Bloc colleagues and I have done all day-to put Montreal, the heart of Quebec, back in its rightful place in Canada and in America.

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the motion we are debating today, presented by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, the member for Roberval, reads as follows:

That this House recognize Montreal as the economic mainspring of Quebec society and, therefore, condemn the federal government's lack of concrete initiatives in supporting the Montreal area economy, primarily: the federal government's under-investment in research and development; its inequitable allocation of federal purchases of goods and services; its lack of willingness to support Montreal as a major financial centre in North America and its termination of Montreal's role as a major transportation centre.

The Liberal Party, despite the commitments it made in its famous red book, has done nothing for Montreal and the Montreal region. Even worse, because of its job creation policies, the federal government directly contributed to the impoverishment of Montreal. Over the years, several decisions made by the federal government, more specifically, under Pierre Elliott Trudeau, have contributed to Montreal's losing of influence to Toronto, a plan well orchestrated by the federal government, with the blessings of the anglophone majority of Canada.

I will not repeat everything that has been said here by my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois with respect to impoverishment, but for us Montreal is and will always be the heart of the Quebec community.

What I will say today concerns Montreal as a major transportation hub.

Early this week, the Prime Minister of Canada addressed the Montreal Chamber of Commerce. In his speech, he said that he wanted to help Montreal get back on its feet. He even said he was willing to associate himself with other government levels so that they could together, in a spirit of partnership-just imagine, using the word "partnership" we are so familiar with-improve the situation in Quebec's major city, where poverty now prevails. In his speech, the Prime Minister also made reference to the port of Montreal.

However, he forgot to say how for decades the actions of the federal government have contributed to killing the port and rail activities, to eliminating any chance Montreal had to once again be a hub for the freight and passenger transportation in this region of America.

Here are some true examples. First, there is the latest intervention by the federal government, the bill on Canada's oceans, part of which deals with a new fee structure for the services of the Coast Guard. In practical terms, the coming into force of this bill will result in additional costs for ships sailing through the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, while the Churchill port, in Manitoba, will not have to pay for the coast guard's services. Once again, this double standard can only harm the port of Montreal.

It is important to point out that in Quebec many industries depend on shipping for their livelihood. Every year, they pour $1.2 billion in the economy. Some 20 million tonnes of freight transit through the port of Montreal, which represents 726,000 containers a year. This accounts for 14,000 direct and indirect jobs. This is what is at stake. But mainly, it is ice free and navigable 12 months of the year, which is not the case for Churchill.

Bill C-26 would be a double whammy for the Montreal port since it already faces very stiff competition from American eastern seaboard ports. The passage of Bill C-26 might result in the diversion of all shipping towards the United States. This would not be the first time the federal government is hampering Montreal's profitability. Many decisions have lead to the loss of rail and port infrastructure in Montreal.

Madam Speaker, I see that I have only one minute left. May I have unanimous consent to finish my speech?

[Seniors' Bill Of Rights, October 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak to this motion concerning the drafting a seniors' bill of rights. You know, seniors represent three phases in our lives. The first one is when they are our grandparents. The second one is when they are our parents. And finally, if you and I are lucky, the third one is when we ourselves become grandparents one day.

In my riding, there are people who work very hard. They have reached a certain age, an honourable age, have retired and have been working for all kinds of organizations ever since. For example, in Granby, the Club du lundi is chaired by Marcel Maheu, who is over 70 years old. He has also founded a group called Civisme Granby, which tries, through various means, to bring people to be more civil. Mr. Maheu has also been co-chairman of the committee for the monument that was unveiled last week in memory of Horace Boivin, former mayor of Granby who remained the city's ambassador until he was 89.

I would also like to mention Jeannot Tremblay-Bergeron, a woman who for a number of years has served meals to people in need in Granby. She is in her sixties and, everyday, with a group of volunteers, she serves meals to the disadvantaged. There is also Roger Charbonneau. If the Bloc Quebecois is doing well in my riding, it is thanks to the chairman of the Bloc association, who will turn 75 on his next birthday.

When I was first elected, a group of seniors came to see me. They were led by Léonard Viens, chairman of the seniors association in Granby. They wanted to build a centre where they could get together. During the last election campaign, the Liberal candidate had promised them a hefty grant.

Shortly after I was elected, these people came to my office and I had to tell them that unfortunately there were no longer any grants for this type of construction. They were not discouraged, although perhaps a little disappointed. They rolled up their sleeves and they built their centre. And it is a very fine centre. I had the pleasure of attending the opening, and there were over 500 people present. All this is to say that when senior citizens have the health and the means, they have the time and they can achieve great things.

The situation now is that there are over 500,000 older Canadians living in poverty. Most of them are women. Some studies show conclusively a link between poverty and health in old age. Documentation submitted by seniors groups says, and I quote: "We question the appropriateness of placing more restrictions on seniors in the next federal budget, such as an old age security clawback based on family income rather than on individual income. This last proposal is an attack against senior women and violates all principles of gender equality".

We know there have been battles in the history of Quebec and Canada. Women have asked for and even demanded equality and I believe we would regress if we were to talk about family income rather that individual income. Those women are among the poor in our society.

Just because one has spent a life time raising children and working very hard sometimes for not much money, that is no reason to have to be poor as one grows older. We only have to think of our parents and grand-parents, who worked very hard to raise their family and may have lived in poverty all their life.

If the government wants to be consistent with the motion, it must make sure that seniors in our society live with dignity till the end of their days.

I want to pay tribute to my colleague, the member for Argenteuil-Papineau, who is the seniors critic for the Bloc Quebecois. He does a fantastic job and is forever making us, in the Bloc Quebecois, aware of how important it is to take seniors into account and to treat them well.

In the last budget and in the finance minister's proposals, it is mentioned that, until the next election, pensions will be left alone.

If we really believe in the distribution of wealth, I think we are not giving enough to the have nots. These people have worked all their lives, and have earned the right to some financial security.

Let me tell you about an incident that took place in my riding, which I am sure you have seen in your riding too, Mr. Speaker. An elderly woman came to my office. I would say she was 70 although it is hard to know exactly. She had not filed an application to receive increased benefits. She was there, sitting in front of me and I was deeply touched. We often see cases like that in our offices and, even though people think we are heartless, you will agree that this is not the case. I was deeply moved when this lady showed me her bank book and said: "Look, this is all I have left". She had practically nothing left in her bank account. She had not received her cheque.

Of course, we fixed the problem, but it took a few days, perhaps even two weeks. This very poor woman-and there are many like her in each of our ridings-was feeling insecure, which is a frequent cause of illness.

We must simplify procedures and cut as much red tape as possible so that when these people forget to fill out a form, for example at the beginning of the year, they are not left out in the cold.

As the hon. member who put forward the motion was saying, a society is judged on how it treats its poorest and weakest members, that is to say, its young people and its senior citizens. I think starting out in life is an extraordinary thing. But, as a people, we in Quebec are working hard to achieve this goal, and in Canada, too, to allow these people to maintain their dignity.

I support the motion and I think there should be a seniors' bill of rights. This government should be a little more generous with these people so they can enjoy full lives in our society.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, October 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to take part in today's debate on Bill C-29, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese-based substances.

The purpose of Bill C-29 is to ban manganese-based products, including MMT, which are suspected by the government and the automobile industry of damaging antipollution devices in cars, although in Canada this substance has been added to most types of unleaded gasolines since 1977. Therefore it follows that MMT is harmful to the environment and to the health of Quebecers and Canadians. However, this is not so.

When added in very small quantities, as it is in gasoline, MMT has been shown not to be harmful either to the environment or to health. Since the conclusions arrived at by Health Canada were not the ones the government expected, it had no other choice but to resort to a special piece of legislation to ban interprovincial trade in and importation for a commercial purpose of certain manganese-based substances, including MMT.

After the auditor general, is it now the turn of Health Canada scientists to be the butt of Liberal wrath? One might wonder.

If the Canadian government wants to legislate in this area, it is not on environmental grounds nor to protect the health of its citizens, but as the result of pressure from various lobbies. If MMT had been proven to be a health hazard, or harmful to the environment and cars, its use would have been banned a long time ago.

To better understand the whole controversy surrounding the use or prohibition of MMT, it might help to mention again who the stakeholders are in this issue.

First there is the Ethyl Corporation. Based in the United States, it manufactures lubricating additives and engine performance enhancing fuels. Moreover, it is the only exporter of MMT to Canada. MMT is added to gasoline in Sarnia, Ontario.

Second, there is the American Environment Protection Agency. For years it has been fighting Ethyl in court to maintain the ban on MMT. On November 30, the EPA regulation was overruled by the US court of appeal in the District of Columbia. The EPA announced it did not intend to appeal the ruling.

Third, there are the car manufacturers. They are against any kind of gasoline additives, including MMT. They are threatening to increase car prices in Canada and limit the warranty coverage on these cars if MMT is not banned. There is as yet no hard proof that MMT actually harms automobile pollution control systems.

Last, there are the oil companies. They are in favour of MMT on technical grounds. Processing MMT is less intensive, therefore oil refinery smoke stacks release smaller quantities of pollutants into the atmosphere.

And finally, ethanol producers are probably opposed to MMT because they believe ethanol would be an excellent alternative to MMT. It is interesting to note that ethanol is produced mainly in the riding of the former Minister of the Environment, the present Deputy Prime Minister.

Therefore the whole issue of banning MMT is resulting in considerable costs for the oil industry. These costs could amount to $7 million in Quebec alone. Furthermore, oil companies could spread a rumour of massive layoffs, or price increases for the consumer, if MMT is not accepted.

We must not forget that Canada is facing a suit for $275 million from Ethyl Corporation, based on the free movement of goods policy included in NAFTA. Personally, I believe the Minister of the Environment is taking a big risk, which could have unforeseeable consequences, on top of all the problems this would cause for the Canadian affiliate of Ethyl Corporation.

Last February, the international trade minister wrote to the environment minister to remind him of that fact. But it seems the environment minister decided to wait and see whether Ethyl or the American government would initiate legal proceedings against the federal government for breach of the free trade agreement.

Furthermore, as I mentioned before, banning MMT would benefit the ethanol industry, which is well developed in Ontario and the West, at the expense of the ethanol industry in Quebec which is barely beginning.

I would like to explain the Bloc Quebecois' position. The Bloc is open to the passing of a bill banning the utilisation and the importation of MMT, provided it is proven that this product poses a threat to the environment and people's health. The Bloc Quebe-

cois even voted in favour of Bill C-29 to allow for a more thorough study in order that light could be shed on the whole issue.

However, I must admit that debate and discussions brought to light not the harmful effects of MMT, but the stubbornness and partisanship of the present Minister of the Environment and of his predecessor, the Deputy Prime Minister. The Liberal government is showing no respect for the international trade agreements it signed and disregards the Canadian Constitution as far as provincial jurisdictions are concerned.

When it tabled Bill C-29, the federal government declared it wanted to regulate gasoline distribution essentially for three main reasons, because MMT was hazardous to the health of Canadians and Quebecers, because it could damage pollution control devices and because we should harmonize our policies with the American ones. Unfortunately those arguments are no longer valid. A recent American ruling has shown that MMT has no harmful effects on pollution control systems.

In conclusion, the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to Bill C-29 and that is why we shall vote against it.

[Canadian Armed Forces, October 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister justify the statement made by the army spokesperson for the western region to the effect that there is nothing seriously wrong about this and that such a minor incident does not even warrant sanctions?