Nic Leblanc

[East Timor, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today is a sad day in that it marks the 20th anniversary of the invasion of East Timor by the Indonesian army. As you know, this invasion resulted in one of the worst holocausts since 1945, with the genocide of more than one third of the population.

Unfortunately, East Timorians are still the victims of one of the harshest political repressions known.

Year after year, reputable organizations such as Amnesty International, denounce violations of human rights in that country. On this sad day, which reminds us that too many human beings die in the name of freedom, the Bloc Quebecois wants to denounce the very timid attitude of the Canadian government regarding the promotion of human rights.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment briefly on what the Minister of Indian Affairs said.

First of all, there is something I do not understand although I have been here in Ottawa for a number of years. Why is the federal government using aboriginal peoples in many cases to discredit Quebecers? Perhaps he will admit it today, since only yesterday, his deputy minister admitted they would have to give aboriginal people in Quebec financial compensation for voting no.

I also remember that a few years ago, they used aboriginal people to file claims in New York, to prevent the Great Whale project from going ahead.

It is rather amazing to see the minister stroking aboriginal people today and trying to tell Quebecers that he loves them and wants to promote economic and social development, when meanwhile, the same minister is using aboriginal people to prevent Quebec from developing its hydro potential, for instance. Those are a few examples.

Of course, it is not easy to prove all that, but anyone who is the least bit intelligent and has an interest in economic development and politics is aware of this, and Quebecers are very much so. Aboriginal people were consistently used to obstruct megaprojects in Quebec, probably to promote other sources of energy like uranium or western oil. This is atrocious.

If the Minister of Indian Affairs thinks we can trust him, he is wrong. We have seen too much evidence to the contrary, and Quebecers are not easily fooled.

He referred to the people in Sault Ste. Marie, and I agree with what he said and I want to thank them. I suppose they wanted to apologize for what they did two or three years ago, when they trampled Quebec's flag. I imagine he remembers that. Of course these people wanted to apologize, and I understand that and appreciate it. We remember very well what happened. It was on all the tv channels. The people of Sault Ste. Marie trampled the Quebec flag two or three years ago. Today, they want to apologize. We are pleased that they did, and we appreciate the gesture. But people should stop trying to fool us.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, according to the minister of National Revenue, the veto will improve the Canadian economy and, since Canada has a highly diversified make-up, this diversity will also help to improve the Canadian economy. He never mentioned that the most important aspect of this diversity is that Canada is made up of two nations. They never say this. He did not mention it.

He also said that Canada is the best country in the world, that we are the envy of the world. I find it strange to still hear that today when Canada has an 11 per cent unemployment rate and when there are more people on welfare in Quebec than at any other time in the history of our country. This is beginning to sound strange.

He also said that the veto will help to amend the Constitution. I find that strange and utterly unacceptable since the more vetoes there are, the lesser the chance we have to amend the Constitution. To me, what the government is proposing and what the minister is saying all boil down to the fact that these numerous vetoes will mean that it will be impossible to amend the Constitution. It is as simple as that. This a trap that the federal government is setting for the Quebec government because, with this veto, it will be impossible to amend the Constitution.

Would the minister please tell me how these vetoes will make it easier to amend the Constitution? As you know, it is quite the opposite. I would like him to prove that.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member criticized our leader for saying he did not agree with the distinct society resolution proposed by the government and did not agree either with the veto proposal.

I think the hon. member failed to realize that the distinct society proposal does not give Quebec any power, any opportunity to be distinct.

In fact, what we want is not a piece of paper that offers meaningless recognition of the distinct society concept. Our leader reminded the Prime Minister of this yesterday. So I think the hon. member did not quite grasp the purport of this offer.

First of all, it is not an offer that will be entrenched in the Constitution, and by the way, at the same time they are saying we have a veto. Today, they announced Quebec had a veto. However, they are giving the same veto to the other regions as well. If you give a veto to everyone, it is no longer a veto. It becomes meaningless, because the other regions could use their veto to block Quebec's legitimate demands.

I think this is a trap. They would have Quebecers believe that the government is responding to their aspirations by offering a veto and recognition as a distinct society. I hardly think Quebecers will fall for that.

I have this question for the hon. member. Did he realize what was involved or was his speech prepared by the Prime Minister's Privy Council Office or would he just have Quebecers believe they are not smart enough to understand what the government is offering us today?

[Business Development Bank Of Canada Act, June 21st, 1995]

Yes, it was done previously under the Liberals and it continued a little under the Conservatives. It cannot be done overnight; it takes time.

In 1990, the federal government gave $1.2 billion more in contracts to businesses, universities and research centres for research and development in Ontario than it did in Quebec.

We are not totally blind in Quebec. I can assure you that this new financial institution which is coming to Quebec has gotten Quebecers quite worried. This worries not only the sovereignists, but also Quebec's other financial institutions. The reason we are protesting this new kind of bank which will in a certain way change the order of things in Quebec's financial system is that we are totally against any change in this system.

To reply, in part, to the hon. member who is muttering over there, back when I was a Conservative, we simply wanted to scrap the Federal Business Development Bank. We came very close to scrapping it precisely because we really do not need this financial institution, especially now with its new vocation, which will be to rock the boat when it comes to the agreements between our financial institutions, our businesses and our universities. If we could gain control of job training, we could close the loop and bring lasting prosperity to Quebec, and be rid of the federal government that is stifling our growth. We are really looking forward to becoming sovereign.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada Act, June 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-91, which seeks to change the name of the Federal Business Development Bank, as well as its purpose.

The Federal Business Development Bank is a long-standing institution which has played an important role in economic development, as a bank of last resort. That was and should continue to be its mandate since that bank should not compete with other financial institutions.

The bank gets a new name which is of strategic importance for the federal government. It will become the Business Development Bank of Canada. What does that name mean exactly? Will it strive to develop business and the economy or Canada?

It reminds me somewhat of development banks in Africa. I guess the government now recognizes that it is running a developing country. We must look like a developing country in the eyes of the international community. The federal government just confirmed that the state of its economy is appalling, that its debt is staggering. It just said so. It will probably get foreign money through the Business Development Bank of Canada, just like the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development gets money, even from Canada, the United States and Japan, to develop eastern countries which have problems.

By using such a name, it should be easier for us to go to Japan, even China, and to richer countries, since Canada has become a developing country. In fact, we are among the 65 or 70 poorest countries of the world if you look at the national and foreign debts. Canada is on the same level as developing countries. This new name is a pretty smart idea. It will probably allow Canada to borrow more money abroad to promote its own development, before it goes bankrupt, assuming this is not already the case.

In Quebec, we took control of our financial institutions a long time ago. In Quebec, we already have control over a few hundreds of billions of dollars thanks to our caisses populaires , the Fédération des caisses d'économie Desjardins du Québec, the provincial charters we control ourselves, as well as over our priorities in terms of our activities, and we want to keep it. We also want very much to continue to cooperate with our financial institutions.

We do not want the federal government to interfere through a financial institution which will have a much broader mandate and will prevent Quebec from working hand in hand with its own financial institutions as it has always done.

We had to build our financial institutions ourselves because the federal government was not very useful in helping us to keep our money and invest in our industries. Again, I understand very well why the very centralist Liberal government wants to control everything. It wants to control our priorities, it wants to collect our tax revenues and spend the money according to its own priorities. Not only does it want to impose its priorities in terms of manpower training, but it also wants to do so in the trade area.

Let me give the House some examples which have led me to believe that the federal government is trying to increase its control. It says that it will be able to sign agreements with other financial institutions and with other private companies in order to defend some industries. For instance, we know, and I often come back to this issue which I find important, that the federal government never supported Quebec's hydro development programs. The province of Quebec was the sole investor in Hydro-Quebec. It invested tens of billions of dollars, while the federal government never spent a penny on these projects.

Again, the federal government will want to be the one to decide which industries should be given priority for development purposes. This means that the federal government could favour businesses in the uranium, natural gas or oil industry, for example, over businesses in the electric power industry. That is what it means. When we say that the federal government wants to control industrial priorities in Quebec, it does it through the Federal Business Development Bank by interfering even more and by making decisions regarding economic development priorities in that province. It is terrible.

Do not think that we are fooled. We can see very clearly what is going on. We know the history of Quebec. We have lived through it. I come from Quebec, I was part of the business community and I know full well that Quebecers had to work twice as hard to achieve the equivalent of what Ontario was able to achieve. Why is that? Because the federal government was working against us.

The federal government has always worked against us. Just look at what is happening in Ottawa with regard to research and development, for example. Three or four years ago, I conducted a study to see who was getting research and development contracts. Well, in 1990, research and development contracts awarded to businesses and universities by the federal government totalled 1 billion-

[Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the Reform Party for refusing to support Bill C-88.

I myself worked hard for free trade with the United States. I can tell you that the Free Trade Agreement with the United States is much more open than the agreement we are trying to establish at the moment. As far as the rules are concerned, the tribunal established to resolve disputes is composed of the same number of representatives from the United States and Canada-the two countries are equally matched.

In this case, however, the federal government will unilaterally decide on and dictate the resolution of disputes. It alone will establish the rules. This is completely unacceptable, particularly for Quebec.

In the past, the federal government has decided on its own to promote one region over another. We have just seen this. Two, maybe three years ago, huge sums of money were spent to promote oil production in the great Hibernia project. As we know, the experts say Hibernia will always be a money loser. For Hibernia to make money, they say, oil would have to sell at $30 a barrel; it currently sells for $20. As you can imagine, the federal government will have to make up the difference between losses and revenues.

Once again, with regard to this bill the federal government is giving itself all the power, namely the power to decide. It is not giving the provinces any power to negotiate or to resolve differences. This is totally unacceptable. We have seen similar examples in the past and we will see others in the future. For example, the federal government has provided considerable assistance in the development of uranium, by doing research with the CANDU systems on atomic energy. We all know that uranium is powerful and worth a fortune, however, it is located in Ontario. Not a penny was spent in Quebec to help develop hydro-electricity.

And now the federal government is going to decide on its own, unilaterally, how certain areas of activity, how certain energy sectors in the country are going to be promoted.

I agree completely with the Reform Party in saying that the provinces and the regions must have a say in the resolution of trade disputes in Canada.

[Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will take only a few minutes to speak again to a bill I consider very important and which I also had a chance to discuss at the second reading stage.

I think the importance of this bill cannot be overestimated. Its purpose is to implement a convention that was signed by several countries. The fact that we are now about to pass this bill bodes well for the future, because I am against all kinds of weapons. But I am also realistic. I think weapons of all kinds will be around for a long time. However, chemical weapons above all should be absolutely prohibited because they are cruel and inhumane.

I hope such weapons will never be used again, but we cannot ignore the fact that these weapons are used and have been used in the past and that they kill adults and children who are innocent of any involvement in wars or conflicts.

These weapons could also be used against groups who are against a given religion, for instance.

A whole congregation of Christians, Jews or Muslims can be destroyed with these weapons. They are not just used to wage war but also to defend all kinds of ideologies and, in the process to attack innocent people. That is why today I again want to take a few moments to condemn these horrifying weapons.

These weapons can make people chronically ill. People are attacked physically, and their health may suffer for the rest of their lives. They are very dangerous in that respect as well. These weapons can also contaminate soil and water, damage the health of animals and destroy plants. They have a disastrous impact on the environment and human beings.

These weapons can also breed further hostility, as the memory of the suffering and ill health they caused will linger, possibly generating further conflicts in the near future. I think that is why it is so important to destroy these chemical weapons as quickly as possible and thus prevent recurring conflicts between peoples and nations.

Bill C-87 says we must prohibit the stockpiling, sale and production of these chemical weapons, and I certainly agree with this bill. I hope that the agency responsible for enforcing the provisions of this convention will take all necessary steps to do so using diplomacy and also bringing trade pressures to bear on countries that do not comply with the convention or refuse to sign the convention. They should be punished by means of trade sanctions, and the agency should use diplomacy to ensure they ratify or comply with the convention.

[The Late Robert Lloyd Wenman, June 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to extend my sympathies to the family of Bob Wenman. Mr. Wenman was a very likeable colleague over the years that I worked with him. We regret his passing and we offer our condolences to his family.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, June 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thought it might not be necessary for me to speak to this bill on the parliamentarians' pension plan.

I have been a member of this House since 1984. I did not go into politics because of the pension but because I had a vision of the future. I did not run for Parliament because of the salary; I did not even know how much members made until after I was elected. So you can see, my first concern was not about salary and pension. It was to defend the public interest, the interests of the people of Longueuil, as well as my party's policies, which I believe in.

Since the Reform Party says that Bloc members should not receive a pension from the federal government if Quebec ever becomes sovereign, I wish to reiterate what I said on several occasions in response to English speaking journalists. I asked them if someone now working for a U.S. company, who has contributed to this company's pension fund for 10 or 15 years, will not be entitled to receive his pension from a U.S. company because he is Canadian.

I think that is the major issue in this case. I have been working for the Canadian government for 11 years. We as members are not employers, but we still work for the Canadian state, and the day Quebec becomes sovereign, I will have made my own contribution to a pension fund. I do not see how anyone can say today that I would not have the right to receive what I paid into this plan.

That is why I think that such statements are totally disloyal and a little twisted coming as they do from the Reform Party, and from some journalists who have often argued that it would not be legitimate for us to receive a pension should Quebec achieve sovereignty.

I am feeling very legitimate and very comfortable, because I have contributed to this pension fund and I am simply entitled to it, whether it comes from an American or Canadian company or from the Canadian government. I am entitled to it because I have already contributed to this fund for 11 years.

Whenever I hear talk of a gold-plated pension plan, I think that, as far as I know, the majority of people who go into politics do not come here for the fat pension we receive after we leave. Most politicians, at least those I know, did not go into politics for the pension fund; they came here to further the interests of their party and put forward what it stands for.

Such arguments do not seem valid to me, and I do not think that the Reform Party will score very many points by trying to give the public the impression that members of Parliament are overpaid and that their pensions are too generous. I think that this is of little concern to the people of Canada.

All they want is, first and foremost, to have jobs and healthy businesses that can create more jobs. Canadians want the kind of climate that will be conducive to a sound economy that will lead to job creation. I think that is what they want. Whether MPs make $64,400, $64,00 or $75,000, they really do not care, but they care about their member's performance. They also want their MP to fulfil their aspirations in many respects. In any case, people of my riding of Longueuil have seldom told me that I was making too much money. Their comments had more to do about whether they felt I was doing a good job or not or representing them well or not.

As the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said earlier, the reason why constituents complain about their MPs is not because they are making too much money but rather because they are not paying enough attention to fulfilling their wishes. That is the spirit in which this bill, which seems reasonable to me, should be supported.

The government has come a long way, and if there is one aspect that I might have questioned myself, it is the fact that pensions are paid as soon as MPs leave public life one way or the other, but this bill provides for pensions to start when MPs reach the age of 55, and that sounds reasonable to me. Reducing slightly pension benefits, which may have been on the high side, also seems reasonable to me.

For these reasons, I support the bill on pensions.