Laurent Lavigne

[René Lévesque, November 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on November 1, 1987 we lost the founding father of the Parti Quebecois and of the sovereignist movement, René Lévesque.

More than anyone else, Mr. Lévesque incarnated Quebecers' confidence in themselves. He was one of the key figures who shaped the quiet revolution through his lead role in the Lesage government and he contributed to the creation of modern day Quebec, particularly by nationalizing our electrical power.

As the Premier of Quebec, he has left a lasting heritage. We need only think, for instance, of the charter of the French language and the recognition of aboriginal right to self-government.

His legacy to us was a faultless sense of democracy and healthier politics; his proudest accomplishment in this area was enactment of the legislation on political funding.

I am sure that René Lévesque, great democrat that he was, would have been proud of the 94 per cent turnout, as Quebecers exercised their right to vote this past Monday.

[The Constitution, October 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this week, the Prime Minister's cynicism has reached new heights. After claiming that he always supported the distinct society concept, when in fact he fought against its inclusion in the Meech Lake accord, the Prime Minister said yesterday, in a speech in Verdun, that any constitutional change affecting Quebec would only be made with the consent of Quebecers.

This absurd statement from the very person who imposed the Canadian constitution on Quebecers, when the Quebec Liberal Party and the Parti Quebecois were jointly opposed to it, shows that the No side is panic stricken.

Quebecers will no longer be taken in by such equivocation. On October 30, they will vote Yes to denounce the patriation of the constitution imposed to them in 1982 by the current Prime Minister of Canada. Quebecers will vote Yes to be on an equal footing to negotiate from a unified platform. On October 30, they will vote Yes to give themselves a country.

[Referendum Campaign, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the best way to avoid distortions is to give back to Quebec full authority over manpower training, along with the related funding, and thus create a single-window service.

Will the Prime Minister recognize that his government's measure, namely Bill C-96, contradicts the position held by the No committee in the brochure distributed by the director general of elections, since Ottawa is increasing duplication in the manpower sector by eliminating the UI fund?

[Referendum Campaign, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in the same document distributed by the director general of elections, the No side says that we must continue to reduce duplication.

Does the Prime Minister recognize that his government's decision to establish the human resources investment fund totally

contradicts that statement by the No side, since, with this fund, Ottawa will interfere even more in the manpower sector?

[Bombardier Inc., September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last week, Laurent Beaudoin, the president of Bombardier, felt that Quebec was too small for a multinational like his. It is rather ironic to hear those who owe their success to Quebec solidarity treating us as incompetents.

While Switzerland and Sweden, each with about the same population as Quebec, have more than twenty multinationals of this calibre, in their opinion, Quebec will not be up to it.

A sovereign Quebec, which will rank fifteenth as a world economic power, nothing less, will not be up to it-what an idea. Who do they think Quebecers are anyways?

While the No camp, those who advocate the status quo and stand-pattism are shrinking, reducing and crushing Quebec, the Yes camp, the camp for change, believes in Quebec's and Quebecers' potential and is betting on the young and their future.

[Fête Nationale Du Québec, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Quebecers will be celebrating the fête nationale du Québec on June 24.

For centuries, we have been celebrating the summer solstice with bonfires. In 1834, the newspaper editor Ludger Duvernay organized the first celebration symbolizing the struggle of French Canadians to survive. Over the years, this celebration has become an opportunity for Quebecers to show their determination to create a country for themselves.

Proclaimed fête nationale du Québec in 1977, June 24 has become a day for all inhabitants of Quebec.

This year, Quebecers are invited to celebrate their sense of community at over 700 sites throughout Quebec. Next year, if such is the wish of the people, we will be celebrating our country, our Quebec, on that day.

[Privatization Of Canadian National, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, to make CN more attractive to potential buyers, the

Minister of Transport is about to spend between $600 million and $1 billion in public funds to reduce this corporation's debt.

This squandering of public funds for the benefit of CN's future buyers is unacceptable, especially since the minister has refused to make a commitment to ensure the survival of AMF Technotransport. The minister himself admits that this CN subsidiary, which employs 1,300 people in Pointe-Saint-Charles, a Montreal neighbourhood which is one of the poorest in Canada, faces an uncertain future. The closing of this company would have serious consequences for Montreal and a disastrous impact on the Pointe-Saint-Charles area.

Instead of sweetening the deal for the eventual buyers, the minister should try to help AMF workers, who live in an area already afflicted by poverty.

[Supply, May 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, there are a few comments I would like to make, and I would also like to say, as did the hon. member for the Reform Party, that I too was disappointed in the so-called transparency of the Liberals.

Elected in the riding of Beauharnois-Salaberry, when I came to Ottawa I innocently asked to be a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence. Why? Because when the Liberals were the official opposition, the present Prime Minister said, among other things, that defence conversion was the way of the future and that, once he was in power, he would make every effort to provide additional funding for defence conversion.

I asked to be a member of the defence committee, because the committee was responsible for dealing with this matter and exploring new approaches to defence conversion. In my own riding I have Expro, a company that is still waiting for federal assistance for defence conversion, but none is forthcoming.

The first thing that happened is that one morning, we arrived in the House and the government tabled an emergency motion proposing that the defence committee consist not only of members of the House of Commons but also of senators. This took us by surprise. We discussed it in the House, a vote was taken and subsequently, both elected members and senators were appointed to the committee.

During the first few committee sessions with elected members and senators, I realized that the senators wanted to be on this committee because they wanted to travel. During the first few days the committee was in session, each senator suggested we go to Oslo because this year the NATO conference would be held in Oslo. Canada being a member of NATO, they felt they should attend this conference in Oslo.

Someone else said we had to go to Brussels. Why Brussels? Because NATO headquarters is in Brussels. Canada being a member of NATO, we had to go and visit NATO headquarters in Brussels. Someone else said we had to go to New York because the UN headquarters is in New York and Canada is a member of the UN. Someone else claimed we had to go to Zagreb in Yugoslavia, because Canada has peacekeepers in Yugoslavia.

I was flabbergasted to see every single senator rise with suggestions for a trip. I wondered what I was doing there with my plans to talk about defence conversion for Expro in Beauharnois-Salaberry.

I realized that basically, these people wanted to travel. The budget for all these trips would be more than one million dollars. There was a complaint in committee that this was truly excessive. Finally, they agreed to a budget for $800,000. They left, these worthy senators, accompanied by physicians, nurses and secretaries to take notes for the marvellous report they would make on these trips, a report that was probably shelved as soon as they got back. Now that is transparency-I think the public should know-that is today's Liberal government.

They tell us they work on these committees but, basically, they go off on some lovely trips at taxpayers expense. I refused to go on any of these trips because I thought it was outrageous. That is part of what today's motion is all about. When we talk about transparency, I think the public ought to know that. I am very much disappointed because of all this.

[Green Plan, May 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Minister of the Environment.

We on this side of the House understood, despite what the minister just said, that the Green Plan had been cut by the government opposite.

That being said, does the Minister of the Environment realize that without the Green Plan, her environment commissioner will be similar, in a way, to the commissioner of official languages, and will observe and criticize, year in year out, and will not have the tools to take any kind of action?

[Green Plan, May 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment.

The latest federal budget marked the end of the Green Plan introduced in 1990 by the previous government. The Minister of the Environment has, to all intents and purposes, confirmed that this program, which before its funding was gradually cut back represented a unique environmental initiative, has been phased out for good.

In November 1993 the Minister of the Environment said that many positive things had come out of the Green Plan and she did not want to make sweeping changes just to be able to say she was the new minister.

That being said, why did the minister drop the Green Plan?