Nic Leblanc

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the following question for my colleague and it is that for the past 20 years the government has been living on credit and has borrowed nearly $1 billion for every million people we have in Canada. Does this not prove the federal system does not work, that it is very expensive and that instead of blaming the government, perhaps we should blame the system? The Conservatives did not do a better job, the Liberals before them did not, and today's Liberals are not doing a better job either. So there is a problem, and the problem is not the government as such but the federal system, which does not work. Does the hon. member agree?

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Outremont, I am sorry. People from Montreal do not like it when you say Verdun. Outremont is posh, so we have to be very careful. Again, Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member for referring to the wrong riding.

In any case, the evidence is there regarding this very costly overlapping, whether in the education or health sector, and, as I said, this document confirms that this overlapping has cost so much that the federal government is bankrupt. It is as simple as that.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected in 1984, our debt totalled some $175 billion. Since then, it has continued to grow and we are living on credit; each year, we borrow money to maintain our standard of living. The paper tabled yesterday confirms that federalism can no longer afford to provide the social services needed by Canadians.

We now have the proof of that, and it has been given to us by the present Liberal government. It is very simple. When a government cannot fulfil its main mandate, which is to ensure that everyone's health and education needs are satisfied, that they have the basics to survive, and when it officially declares that it can no longer afford to carry out its social mandate, this is proof that that government and that federalism cannot work any more. Like we said 30 years ago in Quebec, the federal government should have decentralized its responsibilities and put social affairs under provincial jurisdiction.

This would have been a very logical process, as we can see today.

Quebecers will understand clearly well that the federal government is going bankrupt. In fact, that was officially announced last evening: the federal government is literally bankrupt. The evidence is there. Let us take a look at the document.

The hon. member for Verdun should say if he agrees with me on that. After all he is from Quebec. He has followed politics-

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member who just spoke mentioned the role of CSIS in connection with our economy and the protection of our patents here in Canada. I know that several years ago, there were frequent complaints that Canada was a sitting duck for this kind of espionage. I think that was one of the roles CSIS had to play.

Since the hon. member appears to be very familiar with the agency, with CSIS, I want to ask him, since we want an inquiry, whether this could also be part of the inquiry, in other words, why Canada is a sitting duck for industrial espionage. We are told it is terribly easy. People come from all over the world and apparently have no trouble taking or stealing-I think that is the word-something on which we have spent a lot of time and effort.

Since we do a lot of research in this country, why is it so easy to come and steal the results of our research? Perhaps this should be included in the inquiry the Bloc Quebecois is calling for, so we could find out what the problems are and why it is so easy to get away with that.

[Split Lake Cree First Nation Flooded Land Act, June 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since I do not think that the matter was raised, I have a question. When we dealt with the Americans concerning Hydro-Québec, all compensation payments were made by Hydro-Québec. In this matter, I would like to get confirmation that three quarters of the compensation are coming from the federal government, Manitoba Hydro paying the remaining quarter.

I merely want some light shed on the subject. Is the federal government really paying three quarters and Manitoba Hydro and the Government of Manitoba a quarter? I would like the hon. member to confirm this to the House.

[China, June 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this morning and to mark on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois the sad anniversary of the massacres in Tiananmen Square. Thousands were killed there when the repressive Chinese regime crushed the student democracy movement.

In spite of the hopes that had been raised by this vast movement, democracy is still no closer to being a reality five years later. In Shanghai, the 5th anniversary was marked by the arrest of dissident Bao Ge after he had filed papers with the city to register a human rights organization.

Mr. Bao Ge, who had been under permanent police surveillance, was one of the few human rights activists who had not been detained or forced to leave the big cities.

In Beijing where particularly repressive security measures have been put in place, the police, terrified by the idea of public demonstrations, ringed the square where the tragedy occurred.

Memories of the crushing defeat of the democracy movement during the night of June 3 and 4, 1989, are still vivid. According to dissidents and foreign observers, thousands were massacred.

The first image that automatically springs to mind is that of the student facing down the tanks which literally crushed the uprising. One would think that here in Canada, the federal government would have decided to mark this event by making radical changes to its human rights policy, a policy which the secretary of state is defending this morning with great conviction.

Indeed, a great deal of courage and conviction is required to defend this government's 180 degree turn. From now on, human rights will apparently take a back seat to this government's commercial interests.

As the Leader of the Opposition stated in a question to the Prime Minister: "Canada is relinquishing its historic responsibility, since the Prime Minister knows perfectly well that polite comments behind closed doors will have no impact on foreign leaders who systematically violate human rights". Would you care to hear the Prime Minister's answer, Mr. Speaker? He answered to the effect that China would laugh in his face if he adopted a hard-line position.

I think we are the ones who are being laughed at now. If we want respect, we must have a conscience and that conscience is what has earned Canada the worldwide admiration it currently enjoys.

We have heard the ministers of this government take turns telling us that human rights are no longer tied to trade and market logic.

As my hon. colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve stated before this this House on March 22 last, and I quote: "The Liberals had promised a more 'we'll go it alone' Canadian foreign policy, one more in line with Lester B. Pearson's vision. Let the naive think again! The Liberal government is trashing a long-standing tradition of defending human rights, reducing

Canada to the condition of petty trading nation without any vision, or heart or soul".

This morning, the secretary of state reaffirmed the very clear framework of bilateral relations with China recently described by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. There is clearly a double standard regarding human rights violations, with Canada applying a very harsh policy in the case of poor countries-let us just think of Haiti-but a lenient one, one of turning a blind eye, as far as rich countries are concerned.

I listened carefully as the secretary of state praised the four pillars on which the government has decided to base the conduct of its relations with China.

Allow me to reply to some of his remarks. The secretary of state said, and I quote: "We believe systematic and wide-ranging contact will lead to calls within Chinese society for greater openness and freedom".

The problem is not so much prompting Chinese society to call for more freedom as having the courage to pressure the Chinese government to stop repressive action against all those who do call for this freedom.

The secretary of state also indicated, and I quote: "-during the visit of Vice Premier Zou Jiahua to Canada, I personally voiced concern about human rights in China and I raised specific cases with the Vice Premier".

We believe that the Chinese are expecting much more from Canada than a mere expression of concern. Why not have voiced outrage? Why not have voiced it publicly? Why not have condemned the ongoing repression? God forbid that the government jeopardize its relations with China and prejudice any contract by daring to be insistent in any way!

The secretary of state told us about no specific multilateral action that the government intends to take to make up for its lack of leadership in bilateral relations. I challenge the secretary of state when he tells us that the Liberal Party has always taken an innovative and effective approach in its dealings with China. The Liberal Party is certainly not innovating today; if anything, it is going backwards.

I will remind him that an extremely significant step was taken at the Francophone Summit in Dakar in 1989, when Canada led the 42-country Francophonie in adopting a resolution making protection of human rights a "fundamental objective" of the international community.

It also mentioned that not only Canada but also the other leading nations had to take account of the behaviour of the receiving countries-

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks to the hon. member for Beaver River, who particularly mentioned the great generosity of Westerners to Easterners.

I would like to remind her that no more than six or seven years ago, some financial institutions in western Canada were in great difficulty. Since her memory is so short, I would point out to her that it cost the Canadian government almost $3 billion to save the financial institutions in western Canada six or seven years ago.

So, when it comes to her great generosity, I think that she should remember some things and realize that Canada has helped Westerners perhaps more than it is helping Easterners.

The other thing that I would also like to tell the hon. member for Beaver River is that when we had problems with our credit unions, small financial institutions in Quebec, the federal government never helped them out. So you see that the principle of equity is not necessarily always applied in this country. I want to put things in their proper perspective and point out that Canada has been very generous as well, with taxes from Quebec, to boot.

So I would like the hon. member to retract and say that she probably got more than she gave in the past.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member talking about flowers and dreams, but in my opinion, Canada, the great Canadian dream, has lost much of its lustre.

Last week, when I was in western Canada, there was a lot of talk about the Canadian dream, but people tend to ignore the debt and the annual deficit the government is unable to control. We are on the brink of bankruptcy, and these people still think this is the richest country in the world. They refer to a statement by the UN that says we rank first in standard of living, but it is a standard of living obtained on credit.

I said this many times before and I will say it again for the benefit of people who still want to dream. Sure, you can have your dreams, but let us be realistic, when the mortgage is sky high. Before, we did not have a mortgage, but now we are mortgaged to the hilt, and the car as well. We still have the same standard of living, but we got it on credit. And now we are right on the brink, we keep on dreaming.

People still think a very strong central government will be able to run everything, but in fact, we need thorough decentralization, with Canada's regions in a broad confederation and a central government with perhaps a few members who will make recommendations. I do not know what the exact parameters will be, but we do need thorough decentralization to ensure that the regions can develop their potential. Because the federal government insists on centralizing everything here in Ottawa, Canada is going straight into bankruptcy. It is as simple as that.

We have to stop dreaming. We have to face the facts. And the facts are that we need a sovereign Quebec and a sovereign Canada. And we will work very well together, as we do now at the economic level, but we will both perform better. That is what we have to offer. We offer a way to better results. So take advantage of that offer.

When we tell you our performance will improve, this is not our opinion, it was the opinion of the experts in Quebec who sat on the Bélanger-Campeau Commission. They concluded, but they did more than conclude, they analysed the issues and interviewed everyone, the business community, the unions, and all socio-economic sectors. They said that to develop its potential, Quebec needed 22 or 23 real powers. That request was turned down. So let us stop dreaming. Let us face the facts. Let us build a strong and prosperous English Canada and a strong and prosperous Quebec, and let us work in unity. We do not want to divide anything. We do not want to hurt anyone. We want to develop our potential, as is our right. Why prevent us from doing so? We want you to develop your potential as we develop ours. Let us stop dreaming and talking about flowers and let us talk a little about dollars and cents and prospects for the future.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister talk about how frustrated the Bloc members are. On several occasions, she mentioned this frustration. I have to remind her that we were given a clear mandate, following several events. First, there was Meech which failed. Then, there was the Bélanger-Campeau Commission which studied in detail the needs of Quebec, and Quebecers clearly expressed their views on that matter. And then, English Canada rejected once again the demands made by Quebec. So, it was a total failure.

Afterwards, Quebecers sent 54 members from the Bloc Quebecois to Ottawa. So, it seems to me that our mandate is very clear. It is not a mandate made for frustrated people. We are here because Quebecers want us here to protect their interests. Maybe this is something the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister should understand. If she does not know what

happened during the last five or six years, how can she can understand what is going on now in Canada?

I would like people to stick to the facts, and the fact is that we were elected to this House and given a clear mandate. We have no qualms about being here. Since Quebecers pay 25 to 30 per cent of all federal taxes, we have the right to have a say in the direction this country wants to take until Quebec becomes sovereign.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the Reform Party member talked a lot about the environment. I can tell him one thing about the environment. Quebec's environmental law and Ottawa's, which was passed after Quebec's, are so different and so unlike that two environmental studies are required for every major project.

Even the president of Hydro-Québec says that he cannot bring federal and Quebec officials together to go over an environmental review. Personally, I sincerely believe that the federal government is again trying to meddle in environmental management just so that it can control and centralize more in Ottawa.

I will give you an example. Our particular natural resource in Quebec is hydro-electricity. Sometimes hydro-electric projects are blocked, perhaps to benefit uranium development in Ontario or oil in western Canada; if we had responsibility for our environment, we could do the proper studies and at the same time develop economically according to our own priorities.

Again, the federal government is responsible for the atmospheric environment and probably some world body should be involved. As far as the environment and economic development projects are concerned, where we can very well do our environmental studies in Quebec, we do not need the federal government to meddle in our industrial development, often to the benefit of other fields of activity outside Canada.

It is in this regard that we absolutely want real power over the environment and in many other fields as well.