Mr. Speaker, I just said aloud what millions of Quebecers are quietly thinking.
Lost his last election, in 2000, with 39% of the vote.
1992 Referendum September 30th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I just said aloud what millions of Quebecers are quietly thinking.
1992 Referendum September 30th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, as a parliamentarian, I am deeply convinced in my conscience that, in view of all the facts observed and reported in this House, the Prime Minister deliberately misled the House. He lied to this House, Mr. Speaker.
1992 Referendum September 30th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, in view of all that was said and done in this House, I believe that I would be lying to myself as a member of Parliament and to thousands of Quebecers if I withdrew my words.
1992 Referendum September 30th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, can you believe it? Does the Prime Minister admit that by hiding the contents of his conversation with Mr. Mulroney, he lied to this House?
1992 Referendum September 30th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The more I hear his explanations, the more I see that it is nebulous. Given the troubling facts concerning the Prime Minister's statements in this House and
his obvious reluctance to compensate Quebec fairly for the 1992 referendum, how can the Prime Minister explain his attitude and that of the Deputy Prime Minister and of the Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs except as a cheap manoeuvre to avoid giving Quebec its due?
Pearson International Airport Agreements Act September 30th, 1994
This is a matter of blackmail. The very existence of a second legislative chamber in a British-type parliamentary system is structurally illogical. Clearly dominated by the executive branch, parliamentary systems give the Upper House an absolutely ridiculous, if not to say insignificant, amount of power and yet it costs us a fortune.
To conclude, we consider the proposed amendments to Bill C-22 inadmissible and undemocratic. The Bloc Quebecois, as the Official Opposition, is against any legislative activity on the part of the Senate, an institution which should plainly and simply be abolished, and asks that a royal commission of inquiry be held to get right to the bottom of the Pearson International Airport privatization issue.
Pearson International Airport Agreements Act September 30th, 1994
You can hide many things from everyone, day after day-
Pearson International Airport Agreements Act September 30th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today with respect to the amendments made to Bill C-22 by the Senate.
Bill C-22, respecting certain agreements concerning the redevelopment and operation of Terminals 1 and 2 at Lester B. Pearson International Airport, proposes, among other things, immunity for the government from any legal action resulting from its disengagement vis-à-vis Pearson Development Corporation, with respect to the project to privatize this airport.
The Bloc Quebecois is entirely in favour of this provision of Bill C-22, and furthermore the position of our party on this issue is unequivocal; we are asking for a royal commission of inquiry to take a thorough look at the role played in this matter by the
Canadian financial establishment and the Conservative and Liberal parties, as well as the lobbyists.
In addition to clauses 7, 8 and 9 of Bill C-22, which free the government of all legal responsiblity regarding agreements made by the previous Conservative government with Pearson Development Corporation, subclause 10(1) states that subject to the approval of Cabinet "if the Minister considers it appropriate to do so, the Minister may-enter into" agreements to provide for the payment of damages.
However, subclause 10(2) states, and I quote: "No amount is payable under an agreement entered into under this section in relation to (a) any loss of profit, or (b) any fee paid for the purpose of lobbying a public office holder-".
The Bloc Quebecois is, of course, opposed to the payment of any amount whatsoever to the Pearson Development Corporation; we are clear on this. We understand that the Liberal government, by opening the door to compensation in the form of agreements wishes in a roundabout way to reassure the friends of the regime, of whatever stripe.
However, the action for damages that Pearson Development Corporation wants to institute is for $200 million in unrealized profits. This is unbelievable.
Bill C-22-as we just saw-rejects this option under the pretext that the bill violates a basic legal principle, "as it deprives the parties of their fundamental right to ask the courts to rule on their disputes with the government". This right is enshrined in the constitution of nearly all civilized countries, but the attitude of Pearson Development Corporation clearly goes against any kind of basic social ethics.
Such an attitude shows capitalistic greed worthy of unrestrained economic liberalism without any kind of protection for ordinary citizens. As far as I know, the right of a corporation to sue the government and the company it represents for unrealized profits is not enshrined in the constitutions of almost all civilized countries. This bill does not deny the right to sue the government; it simply applies to a specific case, a single corporation, a single project in depriving Pearson Development Corporation of the right to extort $200 million from the Canadian people. That is very clear.
So, to use the same words as corporation officials, it is not a government attempt to put itself above the law. The Bloc Quebecois' position goes beyond simply defending Bill C-22. Our party is defending the very principle of democracy, that is, people's right to live in decent conditions, in a society that is well managed politically and economically and protected against any form of exploitation by capitalist or state enterprise.
In this case, Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is rising against Pearson Development Corporation's shameless attempts to dip into the public purse by invoking constitutional law.
As for the Senate, its attitude in this matter is most deplorable and confirms the urgent need for Canadian society to get rid of this archaic institution and for Quebec society to withdraw from the federal system. The Upper House once again shows itself as clearly undemocratic by amending a bill designed to protect, albeit very incompletely, the interests of Quebecers and Canadians.
The amendments proposed by senators support the interests of Pearson Development Corporation, as the Senate proposes to delete clauses 7, 8, 9 and 10 giving the government immunity from any legal proceedings under the bill, thus leaving the door open to all financial claims from Pearson Development Corporation.
In endorsing the corporation's position, the Senate places itself squarely on the side of Canada's financial interests and shows its bias in favour of unrestricted capitalist exploitation without any kind of protection for society in general. It promotes the proliferation of lobbyists and infiltration by financial interests, while opening the door to the corruption of politicians in Canada and Quebec. Nothing less. A great majority of Quebecers do not want the Senate and I hope that this House clearly understands this desire.
A major theme of the government's red book, the Liberal Party's veritable manifesto in the last federal election campaign, of which they remind this House, is to question the disproportionate and decisive behind-the-scenes influence of lobbies on government policies. Their goal is to remake this same government's image in order to restore public confidence.
So be it, and democracy will be much better in Canada as a result. Therefore we urge the government to keep its commitment by refusing any compromise with the lobbies, senators and companies and by not bowing to this country's financial establishment.
The Senate is as archaic as it is useless. I think I demonstrated that in this House on June 8, when, on behalf of the Official Opposition party, I opposed the funding for that other House.
I repeat, that other House is nothing but a pretext for the government in power to reward friends of the regime, be they Tories or Grits, who will then do partisan work either for the government or for the interests they represent, and it is important that everyone know this.
The Senate has no democratic legitimacy as an institution. Its members are appointed by the Governor General who, by convention, acts on the initiative and advice of the Prime Minister, who actually makes the appointments. Since the senators are not elected, the Bloc Quebecois considers the second chamber to be a political anachronism, a convincing sign that Canada's federal system is outdated.
On behalf of my colleagues in the Official Opposition, I also denounce the unacceptable waste which the budget of that House represents; the Canadian Senate costs some $26.9 million, plus statutory expenditures of $15.7 million, for a total of $42.6 million. Given the current tough economic times, with a debt over $500 billion, and unemployment which is especially high in regions like the one represented by the hon. member who is trying to interrupt, Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, this amount could be used for economic recovery and his riding could benefit from it.
Canada's public debt is partly due to outdated political structures, such as obsolete political centralism, a constitutional monarchy that is an unnecessary waste of public funds and an Upper House that is really just a golden retirement for politicians or others who have well served the traditional parties, be they Conservative or Liberal.
The Senate of Canada is modeled on the House of Lords in the British Parliament. It is a chamber of highly distinguished persons. In keeping with the British tradition, great importance is placed in the division of legislative powers between two separate chambers each representing a separate social class: the people and the nobility.
Regarding the Pearson International Airport affair and the Senate amendments to Bill C-22, the action of the Upper House is in keeping with this tradition, nobility having been replaced by the financiers of the Canadian establishment, represented by lobbyists and paid by the people.
On the other hand, the structural illogicality of having such a legislative chamber in a parliamentary system based on the British model must be recognized.
Regional Development September 29th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, if the government is really concerned about this issue, why did the minister responsible for regional development promise to meet all those involved in the region last summer and then go back on his word?
Regional Development September 29th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup just pointed out, thousands of jobs depend on extending the Eastern Quebec Development Plan. The issue is not whether the Quebec government will be represented at a conference, but whether the minister responsible for regional development will extend the agreement to 1998, as he promised to do.
Considering that hundreds of jobs hinge on the extension of that plan in one of the most hard-hit regions in Quebec, will the minister pledge today to allocate the necessary funds requested by his colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources?