Ghislain Lebel

[Official Residences, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, regarding the residence of the Leader of the Opposition, how can the Minister of Public Works explain that money will be spent to renovate this residence when the Leader of the Opposition has deliberately chosen not to live in it in order to save taxpayers money?

[Official Residences, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, recently the National Capital Commission invited all architects in Canada to submit bids for the restoration or renovation of the official residences of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, as well as the summer cottage at Harrington Lake and the residence of the Speaker of the House.

Can the Prime Minister tell the House what amounts will be spent for the renovation of each of these residences?

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I get the feeling that the party to which I belong caught the government party by surprise in deciding to support the amendment before the House today. I get the feeling that the government party was counting on the opposition of the Bloc Quebecois, and possibly even that of the Reform Party, to withdraw a proposal that it did not care greatly for. The comments of the hon. member who just spoke lead me to believe this is so.

I think the government party, the Liberal Party, made promises to Maritimers, particularly to the residents of Prince Edward Island, in an attempt to win votes, 125,000 votes to be exact, not an insignificant number. In making this promise they were hoping that the other parties in the House would not support them. I think they were caught a little off guard when we supported them. I would like to ask the hon. member who just spoke if he was trying to extricate himself from this matter honourably by recommending a ferry when his party, his minister and the minister's parliamentary secretary all seem to favour a fixed crossing. I wonder if the government party could tell the

opposition if it wants a bridge, yes or no? We are not sure any more.

[Prince Edward Island Fixed Link, February 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, earlier my leader described to this House the position of our party concerning this link. In short, the hon. member from Lac-Saint-Jean said he understood the economic requirements the government party is faced with. He also noted that the concerned minister recognized he was bound by the referendum, where the will of the people was made known.

With regard to the link we are talking about today, this 13-kilometre bridge which is going to link Prince Edward Island to the mainland, everyone in this House, and especially the government party, maintains that this project should contribute to job creation and economic recovery, and we agree with that. However I would like to ask the previous speaker, in the absence of his minister, if there will be an unofficial guideline preventing Quebecers and Canadians from Central Canada, that is Ontario and Quebec, from working on this project, something similar to the official policy concerning the Hibernia project, in Newfoundland. We know that Quebecers are systematically excluded from this project. On behalf of Quebecers in particular and Canadians in general, I would like some further information on this issue. Will workforce mobility be hampered by some provision, legal or otherwise, concerning this project?

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to my hon. colleague from St. Boniface, Manitoba.

I note his statement to the effect that in Manitoba, everything is for the best in the best of all worlds. Unfortunately, I must also note that in Manitoba, not as many people speak French as in the last century. I would not want the same thing to happen in Quebec.

As for his question concerning the public accounts committee, may I ask if most of the members on that committee are from the party in power? If so, could the party in power assure us that the proceedings of the public accounts committee will be non-partisan? I would really like to hear the member on that.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I feel a bit concerned and sad when I listen to the comments of the hon. member who just spoke. Unfortunately I forget which riding he is from because I met him here and there, in Chambly during the byelection of 1991, and I do not know which riding he belongs to now.

I want to ask the hon. member in what way he represents Quebecers in a more legitimate manner with 16 members from Québec sitting on the other side of the House when we are 54 on our side but we are not allowed to get our point of view across in this House.

In the 1991 byelection, he got about 7 per cent of the vote in the Chambly county. Who wins elections, the minorities or the majority? We are 54 elected members in this House to defend our point of view. Do we still have to get on our knees before the hon. member from God knows where to ask permission to stand?

We made a proposal and submitted it to the House. If he wants to rise against it, I do not have a problem with that, but, nevertheless, he has to respect the democratic dimension of Quebecers's vote on October 25.

[Supply, February 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain something to the hon. member from the Reform Party. Our party is asking for a special committee to examine public expenditures while the minister is worried about duplication since there already is a public accounts committee. I understand his question, but the committee on public accounts is responsible for assessing the legality of public expenditures. Did the government respect this or that enabling act in incurring expenditures? A committee or commission, whatever we want to call it, as proposed by my party, would look at the morality of certain public expenditures.

Some embassies have paid $490 for waste containers; it is certainly not illegal to buy waste containers but the $490 price tag is questionable. That is why we want to strike this committee, to get the Canadian budget in better shape.

[Winter Olympic Games, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, three residents of Otterburn Park in the federal riding of Chambly will represent Canada at the snow sculpture competition in the arts and culture section of the Winter Olympic Games in Lillehammer, Norway, between February 7 and 10.

These three Quebecers, Swavek, Peter and Mike Gorecki, have already represented Canada in several international competitions and many times won the public and the jury prizes for their truly imposing works, often on historic themes.

But the Gorecki brothers are paying their own expenses to go to take part in competitions on behalf of Canada, to promote the art and culture of our country.

On behalf of the federal riding of Chambly and of Canada as a whole, I want to wish the best of luck to the Gorecki brothers who are leaving Quebec tomorrow, Friday, February 4, for Lillehammer. I am confident that once again they will come back from this competition with a trophy.

I also wish to express regret for the lack of support from Canada.

[Pre-Budget Consultations, February 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the speech made by the hon. member opposite and I basically agree with him, except that I am about to turn 50 and all previous governments have invoked tax fairness to impose new taxes again and again to all taxpayers, always in the name of tax fairness.

My question is twofold: first, tax fairness and, second, the creation of steady jobs. I remember that from 1982 to 1987, in Quebec, and the situation was probably the same elsewhere in Canada, we did not wait for the chicken to lay the egg: we went and got that egg while it was still inside the chicken. In other words, we found all kinds of incentives to stimulate the creation of temporary jobs. So much so in fact that recovery in the construction sector in Quebec is currently at an all-time high.

Does the hon. member have a suggestion to promote the creation of steady jobs, and can he give us his views on tax fairness? I am particularly curious about lowering the ceilings for registered retirement savings plans, as well as eliminating the capital gains exemption. I wonder if the hon. member could answer that question.

[Pre-Budget Consultations, February 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the hon. member for Mississauga South, whom I want to congratulate on his maiden speech. I noted that he talked about the elimination of the $100,000 lifetime capital gains exemption.

Does the hon. member not think that by doing away with this exemption, to which every taxpayer is entitled during his or her lifetime, the government is in effect taxing the inflation that it has itself generated because of negligence, because of a bad interest rate policy in some cases and because of excessive taxation?