René Laurin

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, it is with great satisfaction that we heard the leader of the Conservative Party say that he has no problem supporting the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois. But he has questions about what the motion does not say. He speaks about reality and truth.

I want to remind him of a reality that is still very present, namely that of the constitutional deadlock. For thirty years all the political parties in Quebec have been asking for radical changes to the Canadian Constitution. Every single party was calling for it. At the time, we were hoping to be able to stay within Canada, to live happily under this constitution and to have the respect we deserve. Unfortunately, English Canada was acting as if Quebec did not want to lose Canada.

So far, Canada has never acted as if it did not want to lose Quebec. The roles have always been reversed, we were never taken seriously. Even the Charest report, the author of which just spoke in this House, gave all powers to Ottawa. The federal government did not listen to Quebec. It did not listen to the people's demands. From what it said, it looked like it understood us, but through its majority, it kept imposing its federalist and centralizing designs on us.

What happens in reality when a law is abusive or unfair? People will not obey that law. We saw it with cigarette smuggling. Because taxes were too high, very few people obeyed that law. The government did not take too long to understand what was going on and changed it. It lowered taxes so that people could be happy and proud to obey that law. That was not done with the Constitution.

Quebeckers have been saying for 30 years that they are unhappy with the Constitution and that they want changes. Each time Quebeckers said yes to Canada, in the two referendums, they did so because they truly hoped substantial changes would be made to the Constitution. But they were duped. Such changes were never made.

Canada got a wake-up call when 49.4% of Quebeckers voted yes in the last referendum. Canadians now realize, as the NDP member said, that it is no longer a game. Quebeckers mean business. If it were to become reality tomorrow, Canada might wonder whether it is prepared to lose Quebec. As for Quebec, it has already done its thinking, and an increasing number of Quebeckers realize that they are not happy to live in this country under current conditions.

Does the rest of Canada want to force Quebec to stay, even if it is not happy, to justify the notion of unity, as the leader of the Reform Party said? Is this the case? Do they want to force Quebec to stay against its will, because it is important to look united? This is the reality.

Can the Conservative leader tell me whether he agrees that this is the reality that makes us want to become a sovereign Quebec.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Not again. You are funny.

[Supply, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, by making this request, is the minister not challending your decision since you already ruled his amendment to be inadmissible?

If the House unanimously agreed to ask you to rule the amendment in order, would it not be telling you you were wrong?

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

It is not indecent, but it is not permitted.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague. He seems to be looking for funding for research and development. But the government has a great source of income that has not been tapped into, and intentionally so I think.

Members of the Bloc Quebecois have often spoken in the House about family trusts and trusts in general. The fact is that trusts are exempt from provisional tax, while every other company as well as self-employed workers have to pay tax instalments four times a year.

By making advance payments on their income tax these people are actually making funds available to the government, and the government earns interest on these very large amounts. Why does the government persist in exempting trusts, in which hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars are invested, without requiring that tax instalments be paid on these amounts, thereby benefiting the government much earlier than if it had to wait till the end of the year to receive the tax owed on these trusts?

At present, the government is paid a lump sum at the end of the year, when these trusts file their tax returns. Yet we are looking for funds, we need money that could be used, based on our priorities, to relieve child poverty and to invest more in education, health and research and development, as my hon. colleague just said.

I would like my colleague, who is a member of the party in power, to tell us what he thinks of this approach and why the government would not require trusts to pay tax instalments four times a year, as all self-employed workers are required to do.

[Questions On The Order Paper, December 10th, 1997]

What was the amount of federal spending on procurement of goods and services for each of the years from fiscal year 1980-81 to fiscal 1996-97, and what was the amount and the proportion of such expenditures in each of those years on single source or non-competitive contracts?

[Telecommunications Act, December 9th, 1997]

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the House has been asked to consent on acceptance or refusal of the motion. I do not believe that it was done at that time. If, in your opinion, it has not been done, I would request, through you, the consent of the House so that this motion may be moved.

[Telecommunications Act, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the Chair that an amendment was submitted by the hon. member for Mercier, which was moved to the end of the debate for a decision as to whether you would accept it or not. The amendment addressed inclusion of a definition of basic services.

You appeared to say just now that, if the hon. member for Mercier removed the last part of her resolution, you were prepared to accept it. I would ask you therefore to follow up on that, please, because the hon. member has agreed to remove the last part of her resolution.

[Telecommunications Act, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The motion included two parts. The first one asked that the expression “basic telecommunications services” be defined. I would be surprised if the House said it is not interested in finding out what “basic services” means. I do not think it is the case.

The first part could at least be deemed to be in order, and I would ask for the consent of the House to at least accept that first part, so as to have a definition of what is meant by basic services.

[Lucie Brouillette, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, on February 11, 1996, while vacationing in Costa Rica, Lucie Brouillette, a resident of Le Gardeur in the riding of Joliette, saved a man from drowning in the Pacific Ocean.

Caught in a current that was carrying him out to sea, the man had given up and was bobbing in the waves to save his strength in the hope that someone would rescue him. As soon as Ms. Brouillette realized what was happening, she quickly swam out, battling a strong current for almost 200 metres before reaching the victim. Somehow, she made it back through the waves to shore with the man.

Tomorrow, in recognition of her courage, Ms. Brouillette will be presented with the Medal of Bravery by the Governor General of Canada.

I wish to pay tribute to this individual for her heroic action in very dangerous circumstances.