Laurent Lavigne

[Liberal Party Of Canada, October 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, another member from Montreal wants to speak today.

The Liberal Party convention, which began today, will be the scene of some very important debates on a host of subjects of interest to all Canadians. The issues of job creation, social programs, tax reform, research and development, the fight against poverty, assistance to small business, and measures to promote exports are all subjects that our delegates will be addressing.

Our party has always listened to the legitimate concerns of all Canadians, including those living in Quebec, and particularly in Montreal.

Unlike the Bloc Quebecois, the Liberal Party of Canada does not wait for summits and splashy media events to begin thinking about the issues of concern to Montreal. We are tackling these issues on a daily basis, and it is time the Bloc Quebecois gave us a hand, rather than continuing to hold its threat of separation over people's heads.

[The Death Of Robert Bourassa, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we were saddened to learn of the death this morning of former Quebec premier Robert Bourassa. Elected four times to the

position, Mr. Bourassa was Quebec's youngest premier ever at the age of 36.

All the people of Quebec recognize the tremendous efforts he put into giving Quebec the tools it needed for its economic future. Throughout his life, Mr. Bourassa treated his fellow citizens with respect and compassion and listened to what they had to say.

His oft-repeated desire to secure Quebec's rightful place within the Canadian federation was one of his greatest challenges. We will all remember this great democrat, this man of conviction and conscience.

Today Quebec lost a great man and, on behalf of my colleagues and the people of Quebec, I wish to convey my sincere condolences to Robert Bourassa's family and friends.

[Committees Of The House, September 19th, 1996]

The auditor general.

[Railway Safety, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but the situation has been going on for 10 years and it is dangerous in Valleyfield. When the most recent derailment occurred in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, two railroad cars could have been carrying toxic chemicals.

Is the minister waiting for a chemical spill to occur in a residential area before taking action to protect residents? These trains go by polyvalente schools and travel close to a school and to the hospital. What does the minister intend to do?

[Railway Safety, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

For 10 years now, the municipality of Salaberry-de-Valleyfield has been asking the federal government to take action to protect residents from the dangers of train derailments. Even though it privatises railway companies, the government is still responsible for safety in the railway sector.

Following the fifth derailment in six years in Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, what does the minister intend to do to protect residents against these freight trains in urban areas?

[Montreal Forum, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Montreal Forum has been the home of many acclaimed stars. Who can forget Maurice and Henri Richard, Butch Bouchard, Jean Béliveau, Guy Lafleur, Guy Carbonneau, Serge Savard, Bob Gainey and many others. Yesterday, the curtain fell on Quebec's most popular venue after 72 years, 2,322 games and 16 Stanley cups. Of all the incidents that occurred at the Montreal

Forum, one really stands out: the March 17, 1955 riot that broke out after Clarence Campbell decided to ban Maurice Richard from the playoffs.

Today, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to pay tribute to the thousands of employees who worked at the forum in the course of those 72 years and thank them for their outstanding dedication. The forum will remain forever etched in the collective memory of Quebecers and Canadians, since it occupied a central place in our sports and cultural life.

[Speech From The Throne, February 29th, 1996]

I would have liked to ask a few questions but, if we ran out of time, so be it.

[Speech From The Throne, February 29th, 1996]

We are through?

[Speech From The Throne, February 29th, 1996]

Could you tell me how much time if any I have remaining, Mr. Speaker?

[Constitutional Amendments Act, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the hon. member opposite was saying, and I would like to comment on some aspects of her speech.

For instance, she made a big thing of this reaching out to us by people from western Canada, from Vancouver and Saskatchewan and the other western provinces. I want to tell her I do not question the feelings of love and affection these people showed Quebecers, except that it was made very easy for them. For instance, air fare from Vancouver to Montreal probably costs from $2,000 to $3,000, and these people got their tickets for $150 or $200. Now what if the situation was reversed? If Quebecers wanted to go and visit Vancouver, I am not so sure people would do us a favour and offer us tickets at $150 a piece. One starts to wonder how genuine this love and affection was. It was a great opportunity to visit Montreal on the cheap.

And I also noticed in her speech that she referred to Canada as a wonderful host country for immigrants. I agree, but what difference would it make if Quebec became sovereign? Immigrants who want to go to Vancouver or Halifax, or Saskatchewan or Quebec would still be able to go there.

In our blueprint for a Quebec society, we did not say that if Quebec became sovereign, we would stop immigration. I think the civility and warmth that are typical of Quebecers would make Quebec a very good host country for immigrants. I see no problem there. Why this claim that immigration can only work within this so-called great Canada? I do not understand.

Are you implying that a sovereign Quebec would not be a good host country for its immigrants? Is that what you mean? Is this Canadian federation the one and only panacea? Is it impossible for a sovereign Quebec and English Canada to each find their own way outside this Canadian federation instead of going on as we have done for the past thirty years and wasting time, money and effort, on all this constitutional wrangling?

In Quebec, successive provincial governments from Jean Lesage to Mr. Parizeau have tried time and time again to find ways to stay in Canada, but they never succeeded. Are we going to go on for another thirty years about Meech Lake, Charlottetown and constitutional problems? We are fed up. We want to go on to other things. We have tried everything, but nothing works.

We never managed to reach an understanding. What makes you think that by continuing the constitutional debate between English Canada and Quebec, we would manage to agree? When I consider all the attempts made during the past thirty years, I see no reason to believe that continuing this useless debate will accomplish something positive. Instead of this endless bickering under the same roof, we would be much better off as good neighbours.