Lost his last election, in 1997, with 36% of the vote.
Canadian Armed Forces November 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, how dare the minister respond in this way? I asked him a question through you and I think I am entitled to an answer.
Here is my supplementary. Is the minister not behaving totally unacceptably by refusing to suspend the promotions of the soldiers involved in the events in Petawawa? How would he react if the Solicitor General suddenly decided to promote those responsible for security at 24 Sussex?
Canadian Armed Forces November 7th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Despite the totally unacceptable behaviour of a number of soldiers and officers of the former airborne regiment from Petawawa, the Minister of National Defence is still refusing to review or suspend the promotions given those involved in this matter.
Is it not shameful that the Minister of National Defence allows the Canadian army to promote individuals involved in the events at Petawawa, that the army even decorated the commander of the former regiment and that the minister himself is today refusing to suspend the promotions?
Agreement On Internal Trade Implementation Act November 2nd, 1995
Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to pay tribute to the people of my riding who have voted yes in the referendum, in a proportion of 52.7 per cent, in the provincial part of Shefford as well as in the Iberville part. In the riding of Iberville, 56 per cent of voters said yes.
From the outset, you should know that I intend to continue sitting in this House for the duration of my mandate as a member of Parliament for the Bloc Quebecois.
This morning, I rise to speak on Bill C-88, an act to implement the Agreement on Internal Trade. As you know, Quebec-and Quebec members elected to this place in 1988-is responsible for the passage of the Free Trade Agreement. Had it not been for Quebec and its voters, Canada would have had a much harder time entering into this agreement between Canada and the United States that has greatly benefited both countries.
Quebec is a state which is open to the world. At present, and this is very sad, it is easier for Quebec to trade with the U.S. than with the rest of Canada because there was no legislation like this, and that made interprovincial trade extremely difficult. As the Minister of Commerce indicated, the difficulty came from the fact that Canadian laws dated back to the 1940s and that there was an unwillingness to evolve.
As I said a moment ago, Quebec trades mainly abroad, with the United States of America becoming our main trading partner. We also trade with the rest of Canada, although less and less as time goes by, and our trade relations with the rest of Canada or our provincial partners are also important.
Bill C-88 will normalize a situation that did not exist before. Take clause 9 of the bill for instance, which we have a problem with. It reads:
For the purpose of suspending benefits or imposing retaliatory measures of equivalent effect against a province pursuant to Article 1710 of the Agreement,
made between the provinces
the Governor in Council may, by order, do any one or more of the following:
The fault we find with this bill is that, once again, the federal government is taking pride of place. In the context of federal-provincial relations, Canada has always taken pride of place and retained the right of disallowance. In this case, penalties could even be imposed instead of deferring to an arbitral tribunal, as would normally be the case between states or provinces.
We totally disagree with Ottawa giving itself the kind of power this legislation would afford it. As I said earlier, Quebec has always been in favour of interprovincial trade in Canada.
What I cannot understand is why Canada manages its internal trade the way GATT managed international trade in the late 1940s. Mr. Manley himself, the current trade and commerce minister of Canada, said so.
The important thing to remember is that, in clause 9 of this bill, the government gives itself a power to disallow and punish. We also object to clause 14, which reads as follows:
- (1) The Governor in Council may, by order, appoint any person to fill any position that may be necessary or advisable, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, for carrying out the purposes of the Agreement.
This provision means that, once again, Parliament will not have a say regarding these appointments. The Liberals always talk about reforms. They always say that they want to change the system. Yet, when they introduce bills, we realize that this is impossible, that the system cannot be changed and that there will not be any reform.
Once again, the governor in council has the privilege of making appointments, without asking for Parliament's approval. Sometimes, we wonder what we, elected representatives of the people and regions of Canada, are doing here. We meet in this House as representatives of the people and that, as you know, is a costly process. However, when the time comes for the government to place its confidence in our assembly and seek its approval, that government bypasses the whole parliamentary process and makes appointments through orders in council or departmental orders.
If Canada is considering reforms, it must correct that situation and give much more power to this Parliament. Canadians and Quebecers are not stupid, you know. They are increasingly aware of the fact that we do not make many decisions here; we just talk. Everything is already decided, and this is what I strongly object to. Reform members also denounce that situation, and this is to their credit, even though we may disagree on what needs to be done. We happen to think that we are a different country. We feel that the chaotic situation in Canada could be corrected by making some constitutional changes.
The ball is now in the court of the people opposite. What will they do? Probably nothing. We will wait and see. We expect that futile discussions will go on for the next 30 years, but I have to say that we do not intend to stick around very long.
In conclusion, this bill provides once again the federal government with the power to act alone and not consult the provinces, something which is unacceptable. It is unacceptable because, in a partnership-as trade relations should be-one side cannot give itself the power to control everything.
Federalism will once again create difficult situations. This bill will probably be passed without amendments, like several other ones, thanks to the Liberal majority. By staying within the Canadian federation, Quebec will have to suffer the consequences of that legislation, which will increase the power of the federal government, at the expense of the provinces.
Purchase Of Submarines October 31st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, how can the minister justify such a purchase of submarines at the cost of half a million dollars at this time, when the cold war is well and truly over and Canada has no need of such submarines?
Purchase Of Submarines October 31st, 1995
Mr. Speaker, Great Britain is maintaining its offer to sell four submarines to the Canadian Navy for $500 million dollars plus the use of our military bases.
The British Minister of Defence has indicated that the offer is still valid, despite the Canadian government's delay in proceeding with the transaction.
My question is for the Minister of Defence. Given the terrible financial situation the federal government is in, can the Minister of Defence tell us whether he has given up on the idea of purchasing four used British submarines for $500 million plus other considerations?
Quebec Referendum October 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, just four days before the vote is held, the Prime Minister of Canada is still beating around the bush about recognizing the referendum results.
If 51 per cent of the population vote no, that is a good result, but if 51 per cent vote yes, that is a different story. The Prime Minister of Canada is out full time on the referendum campaign trail, and he will be voting on Monday. He is taking part in the referendum, yet he still refuses to commit to recognizing a yes victory.
There is nothing more democratic than a referendum in our society, and Quebecers will not tolerate having their choice put down.
On Monday, the majority of Quebecers will vote yes. This strong yes will show that they are united and stand as one. It will ensure that, as a sovereign people, their laws and values will be respected.
Quebec Referendum October 26th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, having reviewed his position, Laurent Beaudoin now says that Bombardier will stay in Quebec whatever the results of the referendum on Monday. After trying to influence Quebecers' decision, Mr. Beaudoin, faced with the imminence of a Yes vote on October 30, changed his mind.
Laurent Beaudoin did not behave as a responsible businessman by using scare tactics to try to influence the decision of his employees and of all Quebecers. Bombardier will stay in Quebec because it is doing well there.
The prophets of doom were taught a lesson in maturity by Pierre Péladeau, who said yesterday: "I think that we as business leaders have no right to try to influence our people- Fear will not solve anything; we will not solve anything by trying to scare people". That is why Quebecers will vote Yes with confidence next Monday.
Referendum Campaign October 25th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, at the No side rally in Verdun last night, the Prime Minister of Canada confirmed that he had nothing to offer Quebecers who are calling for change.
The Prime Minister of Canada is asking the people to trust him and says that he will never agree to any constitutional change without Quebec's consent. But how can we trust this man who, in 1982, agreed to the unilateral patriation of the constitution without Quebec's consent?
As Lysiane Gagnon wrote in today's La Presse : ``It is too little, too late. Weeks and years too late''.
In the past few days, the No side has begged Canada to help it out, but its appeals have been in vain. At the very last minute, a panicky Prime Minister of Canada has entered the referendum campaign with empty hands. It is too little, too late. Quebecers will not be fooled; they will vote Yes next Monday.
Financial Markets October 24th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is feeding the uncertainty on financial markets by claiming that sovereignists do not want a sovereign Quebec to continue using the Canadian dollar. However, there is absolutely no doubt that a sovereign Quebec will continue to use the Canadian dollar and that it is in the interests of both Canada and Quebec to maintain a currency union.
A sovereign Quebec will continue to use the Canadian dollar and, as the Minister of Finance himself pointed out, it cannot be prevented from doing so. A sovereign Quebec will also assume its fair share of the federal debt. If the Yes side wins, Quebec and Canada will be well-advised to start negotiations immediately on the sharing of the debt and federal assets.
The finance minister of Canada has a responsibility to contribute to the stability of the markets and to refrain from spreading doubt and uncertainty the way he is doing now.
Quebec Agri-Food Industry October 18th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about sectors. My point is that the federal government gives us 10 per cent, although the agri-food industry in Quebec represents 21 per cent of the entire sector.
Since the Liberals came to power, the minister has done nothing about this unfair treatment of the agri-food industry in Quebec.
Would the minister agree that closing the federal agricultural research centre in La Pocatière will merely exacerbate the current situation?