Ghislain Lebel

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister on his speech. Unfortunately, I cannot completely subscribe to his claim.

Yesterday saw the minister in the United States talking about trade relations with that country, our main trading partner. The U.S. is indeed one of Canada's very important partners, but at a significant cost.

It is not under just any old conditions that we are friends with the United States and it is not under just any old conditions that we export to the United States. To do so, we have to snub our longstanding trading partners, Cuba, for example. Yesterday the minister was reminded fairly vigorously that courting Cuba was not in the best interest of trade relations between our two countries. I would like him to explain to us what he intends to do about this. He has brushed it under the carpet.

Fifty companies in Canada export more than 50 per cent of all Canadian exports, and the minister is telling us we have to increase the number of exporters. Is this an example of the new Liberalism where as many friends as possible get involved at once? Would it not be a better idea to try to have more products and, by inventing new ones, open markets with our own products, produced and created right here? When I say "created right here", we should think about research and development, an area the revenue minister cut and then went back to after the fact. He clawed back the investments of Quebecers and Canadians who had put their money into research and development.

With one small example, I would just like to show the minister the importance of research and development in Canada. When the first white people, the French, arrived in Canada, an ear of corn was about the size of a cigarette. Then, with the opening of the prairies, research was done and this area was studied in depth. Now an ear of corn almost looks like a bologna sausage. The desire and the research produced success.

What have we done in forestry? We have emptied our land of its vast forests. We know that, before it can be cut down, a spruce tree must grow for 50 years in some areas and 40 years in others. We, however, have not gone any further to find a harvesting method that could meet global demand, if we are talking about new exports, new products.

We are still able to export wood because of our huge territory, but we have not made any discoveries in this area. We could engage in research and development, but the minister was not too insistent on this point.

I would like to ask the minister whether he plans to speak to his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, to make him stop blundering as he did by acting like the highwaymen of the last century, who went after all those who had managed to save a little money and squeezed them dry by collecting their money retroactively.

As the minister would probably admit, the rooster is an early riser so whoever wakes him up must rise even earlier. That is what the minister should do. If he wants to accomplish something, if he wants to get something done, he should rise before the rooster and propose something that makes sense. I am 50 years old and the minister is not saying anything I have not heard before. I never heard an industry or international trade minister admit to us: "I have no ideas. I am no good. I do not think my proposal will work". No minister ever told me that. I am 50 years old, and I am still waiting.

They have all discovered the greatest thing since sliced bread. We, however, can see that the debt has grown to $600 billion, that nothing is working, that the economy in Montreal and other cities is in a free fall, that poverty is rising in direct proportion, while the minister is shouting "Eureka" like the guy in his bathtub.

What we need is R and D, new markets, new products, nothing less. Instead of taking a piece of pie and letting as many people as possible nibble at it, we must put another pie on the table. The minister, however, shows no such political will.

I therefore ask him what he intends to do in this area.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to my colleague for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis. I know that my colleague is knowledgeable about various countries, as he has mentioned. I know he lived a long time in South Africa or in Rhodesia, as someone in my riding told me. He was therefore able to get a close look at apartheid and such regimes. I trust him absolutely on the subject of respect for democracy. It took him 15 years to understand it, but he did.

The gentleman is talking about pointless debate. The new premier of Quebec, who was the Leader of the Opposition here until Christmastime, said, in taking up his duties in Quebec City, that the accent would be on economic growth, on economic renewal, that constitutional debate would be put on the back burner for a while and that the state of public finances would be improved and the province managed as it ought to be.

I am proud of that and I know that members of Parliament and that those in the party opposite us were proud as well. However, with the throne speech, they are the ones rekindling the debate the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis has just rightly complained of.

There was no more discussion on this side about the referendum. We lost it. The winners, however, are behaving like losers. They are poor winners. We are good losers, we accepted it. In his response to the speech from the throne, my leader said that we would respect the institution of the federal Parliament; we would not kick over the traces, as they say; we would respect the democratic process.

I find it odd that the winners are the ones complaining. I find poor winners funny. I think they are just as rare as good losers. That is what Maurice Richard used to say.

Still, it is the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis who is talking about pointless debate. You are the one who started the debate. You are the one who raised it. We want to talk about improving the economy in Quebec and in the other provinces as well.

We want you to come to the defence of the unemployed you are relentlessly pounding these days. This is what the speech should

have been about. Your philosophical debates on the perfect society are all well and good, in their place. I remind my honourable colleague for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis that the referendum has been over since October 30. Move on to something else. Put your knowledge to use. You are an expert in environmental matters, talk to us about the environment. Talk to us about whatever you like, but do not accuse us of rekindling the debate, which is what you did yourself this morning.

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

Things have changed now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister. This morning she spared us the tears and the story of the woman in the wheelchair, who went to Montreal on October 27. Her awkward sincerity was entirely justified this morning.

She speaks of a Canada, a Canada I have long travelled and which I fail to recognize in the words of the minister.

In 1965, I joined the army. That was the time I decided to give Canada one last chance. There were seven Quebecois in three platoons at Borden, in Ontario. The member, now retired from the armed forces, with whom I had the privilege of discussing this in the past, acknowledged that this was in fact the case. There were seven Quebecers who joined at Borden in January 1965 in three platoons-90 men. After five months, the first test, six of the seven Quebecers were dropped; three English Canadians of the eighty-three were dropped. Note the proportions.

Someone came to my office the other day. In 1965, in those same years, the Department of External Affairs was preparing future ambassadors. From the class of ambassadors, of the 38 Quebecers

who entered in 1964 or 1965, three remain with the department. Of the 12 English Canadians, 11 are still there.

That is career equality, equality of opportunity in this fine country.

In 1965, I was one of the six who left the army. It really upset me, but it led to my becoming a separatist. There, I used the word the Deputy Prime Minister wants to hear. I am a a staunch sovereignist with an unshakable faith in his cause.

She talks about drastic budget cuts at a time of economic difficulties for everyone, including the unemployed. How many millions of dollars will they now spend on bringing little English-speaking Canadians from the West over to Quebec for Canada Day or Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day? Probably almost as many millions as they spent so little Quebecers could enjoy their summer vacations in the rest of Canada, at taxpayers' expense.

The Deputy Prime Minister described this country as the most beautiful, the greatest, the most noble, the one that welcomes and accepts everyone. What they should have done first is have accepted Quebecers in the land and given them the place and consideration they deserved. That, however, is something they were not able to do. They tried to assimilate us.

She talks about Winnipeg. I was in Winnipeg last summer; I visited Louis Riel's grave and, just beside it, that of his lieutenant, Ambroise Lépine, whose tombstone has fallen over and broken in two. For five days, I walked all over the streets of Winnipeg, St. Boniface, St. Adolphe, St. Norbert, but I heard fewer than 10 people spontaneously speak French among themselves.

She talks to me about a Canada I do not know, a Canada that is disappearing. And they will not be able to save it because they already have a $600 billion debt, a good part of which was chalked up keeping the country together. They cobbled this country together with money. It did not happen spontaneously. They bought it with special legislation and massive spending. They spent billions on keeping the country together and today they realize that our debt has reached $600 billion but that the country is no stronger than at the beginning.

I say that they should spend the billions or hundreds of millions of dollars they are about to spend on trying to reduce poverty in Montreal. She did not boast about that. She overlooked this little detail. Montreal is the poorest city in Canada. She did not brag about that in her speech. They might throttle an unemployed person now and then, but there are thousands of unemployed in Canada. What regard does she have for these people? She did not say anything at all about them, not a word.

And what about the UI bill? We can reply to the Deputy Prime Minister that her Canada is a utopia, an illusion, and that she may be the only one dreaming about it.

She and her boss, the Prime Minister, are among the last believers in that kind of Canada. They should sit down and discuss with the provinces, especially Quebec, and they might eventually be able to achieve a more acceptable partnership.

In this regard, I ask again-and now I might get a show of tears, the wheelchair story, the events of last October. I, for one, do not believe at all in the Canada described to me by the Deputy Prime Minister.

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

Because we are all sick.

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

Propaganda!

[Committees Of The House, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order regarding the question raised by the hon. member for Beaver River. I understand that you have settled the issue by saying that it was a mistake on the part of your staff, who refused to print the document. But the real question is this: are we to understand that there are people at the printing shop who make it their business to communicate to the Prime Minister's Office all the documents that members send over to the printing shop to have them printed?

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the minister. If he wants to blame the Reform Party for anything, he should first do his homework and pay close attention to this debate. He compares the Bloc Quebecois with Reform. Well, when I as a member of this House tabled a bill to limit the interest collected on delinquent mortgages, for example, Reform was not the only opponent. His party was also opposed, because it was eating into the fund, the large amounts put at its disposal by Canada's large banks, the so-called seven sisters.

So he is in no position to throw snowballs at the Reform Party. It is his party that abolished the council on the status of women. What I mean is that, in spite of everything, I recognize that native people have been here for 20,000 years, according to some experts, that they have rights, and that we must recognize these rights. What better way to do so than by signing treaties? I think that the party I represent in this House will oppose the motion tabled by Reform because it is unacceptable.

Some people who have been here for 20,000 years are being denied their very right to exist, while some first- and second-generation Canadians claim that they have all the rights. I feel that all the people here, whatever their origins, have rights, but why deny them to native people? Although I disagree with the minister, I say that we should oppose the motion tabled by the Reform Party because it does an injustice to an important group of fellow citizens.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask something of the member for Vancouver Quadra. In law, as you know, we often say that the greater includes the lesser. However, in the bill tabled this morning, it seems that they are saying that the lesser includes the greater.

I am totally confused. We rejected a lot more in the Meech Lake accord, but they are now saying that, in this proposal, they are responding to the wishes of Quebecers who voted no. Yesterday, they talked about the notion of distinct society in an insipid, dull, savourless declaration, just like we do with motions dealing with the national scouts week. Yesterday's motion had a similar effect. Today, a bill was tabled and I would like to ask the member how he can expect that we will accept something that we have already rejected in 1992 et which was a lot more than this?

[Bankruptcy And Insolvency Act, November 28th, 1995]

True, Hell also happens to be red.

My point is, he ends on an upbeat note. He says: "There will be counselling for persons related to the debtor". I cannot wait. I cannot wait for someone to tell the manager of the credit union or the manager of the National Bank or the TD Bank or any other bank: "Look, we raised $20,000 by selling the assets of the bankrupt, but his wife and children are taking it very hard; the poor things cannot cope. So I am going to take $5,000 to pay for counselling".

They are going to cause a backlog in the courts with this clause. Does anyone seriously think that creditors will forego a chance to get their money back and instead pay for counselling for the relatives of a bankrupt debtor? I doubt it. This is wishful thinking. But it is an interesting point and I must say I did not expect to find this in a bill dealing with bankruptcy and insolvency.

They say that the proposed amendments harmonize Canadian practices regarding bankruptcy and insolvency with those of our international trading partners. This harmonization will simplify co-operation between countries in the case of the restructuring or insolvency of a multinational corporation and will help enforcement of Canadian regulations on the distribution of assets, creditor ranking and voidable transactions.

I do not want to get involved in private international law at this point, but it was said in your basic course in Canadian private international law, which is after all based on international agreements, that the disposition of immovable goods is determined by their lex situs , their location. While as far as individual rights are concerned, the law of the country of residence prevails. As far as movable goods are concerned, the law of the owner's country of residence prevails.

I cannot see how, unilaterally, through the Minister of Industry and this bill to amend the bankruptcy legislation, the federal government could come and change internationally recognized rules developed outside of Canada, under an agreement between several countries. Unless, of course-in which case, the wording of the bill is incorrect-it was intended to apply only the bankrupt's property found on Canadian soil. That would make more sense.

Another clause puzzled me, namely the one providing that farmers and fishermen whose principal occupation is fishing or farming will not be subject to petitions in bankruptcy, even if their principal occupation is not their sole source of income. Farmers and fishermen used to be liable under the law to petitions in bankruptcy when they ventured outside their traditional line of work to supplement their income during the off season. This bill will ensure that they no longer face bankruptcy each time they become technically insolvent.

Unfortunately, the bill does not say much about the reasons why this kind of provision was included. I hope that government members who will be speaking on this bill, to explain it to us, will be able to elaborate on the motives that underlie the decision to include such provisions in the bill.

That is about all I had to say at this stage of consideration of the bill. I am not blaming anyone. As you can see, I am not criticizing too strongly the government's position. I just find it unfair as it relates to students. Also I think it is a mistake to fail, as it does, to address the situation of those workers who, often, supported the business till the very end, when it finally declared bankruptcy, when, more often than not, the president and directors of the company are long gone. They have run off to Switzerland, as is fashionable these days. Low income workers, those who have worked hard to earn a living, cannot run away. They are forgotten in all this.

I urge the government to show more willingness to co-operate with the opposition to achieve a position that will be effective in maintaining this balance between the duty to pay one's debts and the need to survive.