Réginald Bélair

[Criminal Code, April 21st, 1997]

It is because you are a member of the Bloc Quebecois.

[Bill C-95, April 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Minister of Justice announced the key legislative measures aimed at helping those involved directly and indirectly in the battle against crime.

Most of the stakeholders agree that this bill responds in large part to the needs expressed of late, and provides the tools required for the fight against crime.

Among these reactions was that of the Director of the Montreal Urban Community Police Department, Jacques Duchesneau, who was unabashedly enthusiastic in stating that this bill was a good start.

Many have been pleased with the speed with which the Minister of Justice responded to the pressing needs of the community. His work reflects our government's desire to enhance Quebecers' quality of life.

[Montfort Hospital, April 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Harris government has announced its intention to close the Montfort hospital in Vanier, the only hospital to provide specialized medical care entirely in French. This hospital is the institution chosen by people who need treatment in French in areas such as psychiatry, orthopaedics, surgery and so on.

There are many communities in my riding that are completely or partially francophone. Many doctors in northern Ontario regularly refer their patients to the Montfort simply because it is the only hospital that can provide service totally in French, that is, in their language. Patients can communicate and be cared for, understand and be understood on the subject of the treatment they have come for.

I could say more about the loss of efficiency, but it has already been said. Needless to say, I strongly protest this closure, which is particularly unfair to francophones throughout Ontario.

We must realize-

[Canada Labour Code, March 4th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Nature called. I am back. I would like to be registered for this vote.

(The House divided on Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division:)

[Mining, November 21st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was the annual lobby day of keep mining in Canada, an industry initiative to explain the importance of Canada's minerals and metals sector to parliamentarians. At the same time, the new minerals and metals policy was released in recognition of the importance of the mining industry in this country.

Mining plays a key role in Canada's economic well-being and the economic growth of cities such as Timmins, Ontario. It provides 12.4 per cent of total Canadian exports and employs some 341,000 people. Forty-nine new mines are scheduled to open in 1996 and 1997 with the potential of creating 31,000 direct and indirect jobs over the next five years. This will make a significant contribution to this government's jobs and growth agenda.

Thanks to the new policy on minerals and metals, and to other positive measures taken by the government, Canada will get its fair share of foreign mining investments.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer this question. The hon. member referred to the referendums held in 1982 and 1995. It is true that Quebecers spoke and that their decision was respected.

Let me go back to the 1992 Charlottetown accord. At the time, I was a member of this House, and so was the hon. member who just asked the question. Now, I wonder why Quebec rejected the Charlottetown accord, given that it included the distinct society concept, a delegation of powers-in the mining, forestry, recreation and housing sectors-, an elected Senate, and several other major changes.

After the 1995 referendum, the Prime Minister said he would hold out his hand to Quebecers. We did it by passing the resolution on the distinct society, that Bloc members rejected. One has to wonder what they want.

As for the 50 per cent plus one rule, the Prime Minister also held out his hand to Quebecers last week and this week when he told them that, should another referendum be held, there would have to be agreement on the question. The Prime Minister is talking about co-operation. I do not know whether you will accept his offer. Probably not.

Personally, I would go a little further regarding the percentage that should be required, because I really wonder if, from a legal standpoint, it is acceptable to destroy a country with a majority of just one vote.

I firmly believe that the percentage required should be higher. However, we should, in a spirit of co-operation, agree on this percentage, as well as on the question itself.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, who just spoke, for sharing his time with me.

Today, I address this House, and the Bloc Quebecois, as a French speaking person living outside Quebec.

Canada is the most decentralized of all modern federations. During the sixties, a series of agreements between the federal and Quebec governments triggered a decentralization process, and it was not necessary to amend the Constitution. These changes have allowed Quebec to extend its jurisdiction to areas that traditionally came under federal jurisdiction. Examples of this are the selection of immigrants and the fact that Quebec is represented at the Francophonie summit as a participating government.

In a study prepared for the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, professor Edmond Orban, an expert on federalism, said that "the autonomy of Canadian provinces and their possibilities are, in fact, relatively greater than that of the German Länders and particularly the Swiss cantons".

Mr. Parizeau himself said the following when he was a Quebec minister and delivered a speech at the University of Edinburgh:

"And because rather often in Canada we tend to talk of the abusive centralized powers of Ottawa, we tend to forget that in reality, Canada is highly decentralized". This quote is from the Globe and Mail of December 9, 1977.

In light of this evolution of the Canadian federation, and in line with the changes already made, the government pledged to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the various levels of government, so as to modernize the federation and make it more respectful of the provinces' priorities and areas of jurisdiction.

Building a federation that is more receptive to the needs of its citizens and better adapted to the realities and challenges of our era is our government's goal.

The measures announced in the throne speech seek to implement the commitments made by the government to improve relations between the federal and provincial governments, including Quebec, and to truly modernize the federation.

Canadians want their country to work. They want the various levels of government to be effective and to perform their respective roles.

The federal government has already brought about important changes. It will continue to do whatever is necessary to achieve this modernization, in co-operation with the provinces and with all the people of Canada.

The government has promised, on the one hand, to undertake a retooling of the federation on four fronts, and, on the other, to limit its spending power. The plan is as follows: first, the government intends to withdraw from certain fields of activity, such as manpower training, forestry, mining, and recreation, and to transfer responsibility to local or regional authorities or to the private sector.

Second, the involvement of the federal government is no longer necessary in certain sectors. The federal government will therefore transfer management of these sectors to other levels of government or to the private sector.

I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are replacing the Speaker of the House. This is perhaps a first, having a member of the Bloc Quebecois occupy the Speaker's chair in the House of Commons.

To continue what I was saying, this is the case for part of the transportation infrastructure. Operational control of transportation systems and facilities, now a federal responsibility, will be transferred to local and private groups. Thus, we will reduce the cost, and the services provided will address Canada's real transportation needs.

Third, in a spirit of increased co-operation with the provinces and greater respect for provincial jurisdiction, the government intends to work with the provinces to find new forms of co-operation and co-management in certain fields, such as environmental management, social housing, food inspection, tourism, and freshwater fish habitat. The government will also explore the possibility of setting up a Canadian securities commission, thus ending the proliferation in that sector.

However, such initiatives will not be introduced unless a number of provinces express an interest. As well, participation is voluntary.

Fourth, the government intends to ensure greater harmonization of federal and provincial policies.

All these measures have as a goal the harmonization of federal and provincial initiatives, thus eliminating overlap. They will mean significant savings and more efficient services to the public.

No doubt the most eloquent example of the government's intention to respect provincial jurisdiction is our intention to limit the federal government's spending power in co-financed programs that come under provincial responsibility.

The federal government will not use its spending power to create new co-financed programs without the consent of the majority of the provinces. Provinces setting up and providing equivalent programs will be compensated.

This is an unprecedented initiative on the part of the federal government, which, for the first time ever, is acting on its own initiative to limit its spending power, unequivocally, and outside constitutional negotiations.

The federal budget for 1996-97 consolidates the government's initiatives and intentions in this regard. Measures proposed give effect to the government's commitment to assume its fiscal responsibilities and reduce the deficit to two per cent of the gross domestic product for 1997-98 through ongoing reduction of its expenditures.

The government is also providing long term predictable and increasing funding to the provinces for social programs under the Canada health and social transfer. What is more, the 1996 budget, like the previous one, contains no tax increase.

In addition to these measures, the budget confirms the federal government's commitment not only to spend less but to spend better. In fact, the creation of agencies like the Canada Revenue Commission is part of the federal strategy to modernize the federation and to better define the respective responsibilities of the various levels of government.

This government has made every effort to lay a solid foundation by bringing the deficit under control, avoiding tax increases, cutting red tape, and rationalizing government services to Canadians. Its priorities remain job creation, economic prosperity and stable social programs. Achieving these goals involves modernizing and reinforcing the economic and social union that brings all Canadians together.

We also firmly believe that changing the way the federation works, improving federal-provincial relations, and bringing all

Canadians closer to the decision making process will eliminate the need for another referendum on secession and the break-up of this country.

This government has resolutely embarked on a co-operation-based process of change. These are the values that will guide Canada and help it take on with confidence the challenges of the 21st century. The measures and initiatives put forward by this government will open a new chapter in federal-provincial relations by emphasizing open-mindedness and dialogue.

The process of change under way is part of an aggressive action plan put in place by the Canadian government. It clearly shows that the federal government wants to be pragmatic and that it is not the great centralizing force portrayed by the official opposition.

Canada is a success story, although we agree that our federation needs some changes. We are ready to take up the challenge, to roll up our sleeves and to get down to work, but we need the co-operation of all our Canadian partners. We sincerely hope that the Quebec government will be open-minded and agree to act as a full-fledged partner of Canada and work with our government to modernize the Canadian federation. That was what Quebecers told their provincial government on October 30.

We must continue to build this country and make it stronger. The initiatives undertaken by our government clearly show its intention to bring about changes that fulfil the aspirations of all our fellow citizens.

[Petitions, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition this morning on behalf of 45 citizens of Mattice, who are greatly concerned about clause 17 and the resolution the government will have to adopt in future.

There are serious concerns that this would create a precedent which would allow any provincial government to suppress the rights of a minority.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to speak to Bill C-12, which will surely have an impact in rural communities of Canada and in a riding like mine.

I would like to focus on two topics: seasonal workers and the number of hours they work, and the monitoring program that will be provided, first for the implementation of this new act and then, after its implementation, for evaluation of the results of this true reform of the unemployment insurance system.

The old Unemployment Insurance Act had not been revamped for 25 years. Of course with changing times and an economy which

is taking some very different turns making it very different from what it used to be, it was a must for the Government of Canada to modernize the act.

Thousands of Canadians today are working long, hard hours without protection at all under the existing UI program. Why? Because they are working those hours for different employers and as far as UI is concerned, those hours do not count. Workers cannot get insurance unless they work at least 15 hours per week for a single employer. That is under the old system.

The new employment insurance bill changes that. It bases eligibility on hours worked and not on weeks worked. Whether a person works 36 hours a week for one employer or two or more employers makes no difference. An hour worked is an hour worked.

For example, seasonal workers often work long hours during peak season. Under this EI bill, about 270,000 workers will receive an additional three weeks of benefits because they will now be credited for all the hours in weeks they could not have used as qualifying weeks under the old system. It is a simple common sense change which is long overdue. Work patterns are changing in this new economy, which will be the second part of my presentation.

Bill C-12 is a result of a lengthy and inclusive consultation process. The government listened to what Canadians had to say about income support for unemployed workers and the kind of employment benefits that would help people get back to work. EI is indeed a result of this.

The government also relied on substantial amounts of research. Experts have looked at all aspects of how the old UI system worked. They know it can affect the behaviour of employers and workers in ways Canadians do not accept any more. It can lead people to turn down available work. It can lead employers to cycle people in and out of jobs. It is not because people do not want to work but because the system does not always work well.

This new bill is designed to reward work effort. It strengthens work incentives and insurance principles. It also ensures fairness by ensuring an adequate income for those in need. We are talking about those people who make less than $26,000. They will receive a supplement.

Research gives us good reason to believe that the EI approach will be successful. People who have criticized the bill have not been able to point to the same kind of thorough, objective analysis. Now we will go a step further with a thorough, vibrant process designed to tell us if our expectations are being met in practice, if behaviours are changing as much as we expect or even more.

We will look at how the new system works in a dozen communities chosen to represent a range of labour market environments all across Canada, that is, towns with different workplaces, disciplines and domains which will ensure a good cross-section of employees and employers and the kind of work they do for a more precise analysis. The Employment Insurance Commission will do its own research to monitor how individuals, employers, communities and local economies are adapting to the new Employment Insurance Act. We will see those results annually. Surveys of individuals, employers and community representatives will provide a third monitoring approach.

These processes will give us the required feedback to adjust the program if the evidence shows that we need to. The commitment to monitor the impact of EI is yet another example of the government's goal for a system that is fair and effective in every sense of the term.

I am pleased to take part in the debate and especially to speak in favour of seasonal workers who, in the past, did not fully benefit from the unemployment insurance system as it had been established. Many people were working long hours, but for short periods. This meant that they did not have the required number of weeks, but this new employment insurance legislation will deal precisely with this serious problem since, after July 1, the date this new act will come into force, every hour worked will count for unemployment insurance purpose. That will benefit some 270,000 Canadians. It is extremely important that this figure be clearly pointed out in the House.

[Interparliamentary Delegations, April 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the official parliamentary delegation to the Canada-France Interparliamentary Association, which attended the 26th annual meeting of the association held in Paris and Strasbourg from January 20 to 28, 1996.