Lost his last election, in 2000, with 37% of the vote.
Business Of The House June 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in this debate. Following this rather intense discussion, I immediately wrote a little something for my colleagues from the Reform Party. It reads like this:
“Everybody loves somebody sometime. Everybody calls for Reform members. Something in your moves just told me your sometime is now”.
Budget Implementation Act, 1998 May 25th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, many members spoke to Bill C-36, a bill aimed at setting up a $2.5 billion millennium scholarship fund to help students.
A lot has been said about this bill. As far as I am concerned it clearly shows that Canada is a failure as a country because, with Bill C-36, the government is trying once again to interfere in education, which comes under Quebec's jurisdiction.
Canada's history proves that education is critical to Quebec's survival. It is at the heart of Quebec's plan for the future. If Canada had learned to respect Quebec, the federal government would not be pushing pieces of legislation such as Bill C-36. Since Duplessis and Lesage, Quebec premiers have been fighting to preserve the integrity of Quebec's jurisdiction over education. It is essential that Canada recognize the importance of education for Quebec.
We know that throughout history one of the ways Canada has been trying to assimilate francophones has been to attack the education system. This is what every province outside Quebec has done. They challenged the use and teaching of French, thus speeding up assimilation. This is one of the reasons why today the assimilation rate is 40% in Ontario and up to 70 % in the western provinces.
As a matter of fact, just out of respect for Quebec, proposed legislation like Bill C-36, which interferes in a field as important to Quebec's future as education, should not even be introduced. One can see, once again, from this bill, that motions that are moved in the House to recognize Quebec's distinctiveness are not respected. A motion was moved shortly after the last referendum to have Quebec's distinctiveness recognized and it was passed in the House. But the government introduced Bill C-36, which ignores Quebec's uniqueness or distinctiveness yet again. It is to be expected that the Calgary declaration will not change much either.
Indeed, as long as the government introduces legislation such as Bill C-36, which heaps scorn on something that is central to what Quebec represents, this will only be a further gesture, somewhat like what Pierre Elliott Trudeau did in 1982 with the constitution in an attempt, which succeeded, to reduce the powers of Quebec's national assembly in the area of education. It is since the Constitution Act of 1982 was passed that we have experienced so many constitutional problems in Canada. Since 1982, we have had a great number of commissions and some referendums in Canada to talk about national unity, and English Canada did not learn its lesson.
The government comes back, once again, with Bill C-36, which is a small copy, so to speak, of the bad gesture made by Mr. Trudeau at the time. However, the current Prime Minister probably wants to make the same kind of gesture, that is compromise the integrity of Quebec's powers in the area of education. In fact, this is what is being done.
No one is against better education in Canada. We heard the hogwash of Liberal members who told the House that a stand against Bill C-36 is a stand against better education. Naturally, that is sheer nonsense.
We want students to benefit from this $2.5 billion. Of course we do, but we would rather have the funds paid directly to the provinces, which would administer them. Our loans and grants system in Quebec is one of the best if not the best system in Canada today. The debt load of students in Quebec is one of the smallest in the country.
We do not need another federally appointed agency to come to solve problems we do not have in Quebec. We want Quebec to get back its share of the $2.5 billion, but not this way, not funds managed by individuals appointed by the Prime Minister, no doubt friends of the party, 12 directors who will sit in private, behind closed doors, manage the funds and distribute them as they see fit, without being accountable in any way.
Basically, the federal government will be putting money in the hands of a private agency that will not be accountable to elected representatives. That is contrary to democratic principles. After all, why appoint 12 commissioners or board members to manage these funds when each province in Canada already has a ministry of education managing education funds?
Not only does this bill dismiss the existing system in Quebec, but it shows once again that Canada does not understand a thing about the problems in Quebec and Canada. Once again, the Constitution is flouted. We know full well that this private agency appointed by the Liberal government will be duplicating services currently provided by the ministry of education in Quebec and the other provinces. This is a blatant case of duplication, which entails extra costs of course.
Take for example the millennium office to be set up in Ottawa in preparation for the year 2000 celebrations. It is estimated that the administration costs for managing the $166 million earmarked for celebrating Canada and the millennium in the year 2000 will amount to 10% of the total budget.
What does this mean, with respect to the $2.5 billion budget for the millennium scholarships? Does it mean that $250 million will be spent on managing these scholarships and not on those who should benefit from it, the students? Does it mean that new jobs will be created for the friends of the Liberal government? Are we creating a $250 million slush fund for the friends of the government?
We have the right to wonder, because there is no real need for these millennium scholarships. They will not necessarily help the students, because if we really wanted to help our students, we would give the money directly to the provinces, which would be a good thing. It would reduce the administration costs.
Who benefits from these millennium scholarships? It is pretty obvious that the Prime Minister of Canada is trying to create something to be remembered by, and in a rather arrogant way, too.
This scholarships program is to remind Canadians how much he cares about our youth, when, in fact, his primary goal is only to give his Liberal government more visibility at a very high cost.
Bill C-36 is another fine illustration of the fact that Canada is a failure.
The Budget March 10th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is surprised that no one is listening. That is because he is basically repeating what has been said by every other Liberal speaker these past few days. It is as if they all had the same person writing their speeches in praise of the budget. We know full well that the budget did not meet all the expectations of Canadians, especially in the area of education.
He went on and on about the great millennium scholarship program. But let me quote Professor Trent, a professor of political science at the University of Ottawa, who had this to say about the Prime Minister's millennium scholarships:
“It amounts to the rape of federalism. It is also politically egocentric, administratively inept and strategically stupid. Moreover, it is unnecessary”.
This is what John Trent wrote. Professor Trent is right, because everyone knows full well that, with this budget, the government is once again trying to encroach some more on the provincial jurisdiction over education, especially since Quebec has the most sophisticated loans and grants program in Canada. Quebec students have the smallest debt load, with an average student debt of $11,000, compared to $25,000 in Ontario.
I ask my colleague this: Does he not agree that there is duplication, that the federal government is once again encroaching on the provincial jurisdiction over education?
The Budget March 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, coming back to the matter of education, more specifically the millennium scholarships, the member for Huron—Bruce touted this fund as one of the obvious pluses of the budget. But not everyone, even in English Canada, agrees with this initiative. I quote from an article by John Trent, a professor of political science at the University of Ottawa, who says:
“The $2.5 billion Canadian millennium scholarship foundation announced in Tuesday's budget amounts to a rape of federalism. It is also politically egocentric, administratively inept and strategically stupid. Moreover it is unnecessary”.
Mr. Trent points out what many have said about the millennium scholarships. Basically, the government's strategy is once again to boost its visibility, but it is also determined to impose another administrative system on Quebec, and to do so in a clearly provincial jurisdiction.
Does the member agree or not that introducing a federal system of scholarships and loans adds an additional layer of administration to the existing provincial system? Does he, or does he not, agree that this amounts to interference in provincial jurisdiction?
The Budget March 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would like to return to the issue of education my colleague raised in his potpourri speech.
As we know, education is a provincial matter. I would ask my colleague whether he thinks the federal government could improve on what the provinces are doing currently with loans and grants by setting up the millennium scholarship fund.
Second, I would like to know whether, given the existing student debt load, he thinks it would not be better to give students money now rather than wait three or four years.
The Budget March 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks made by my hon. colleague in praise of the last budget.
Can he acknowledge the fact that, in Quebec alone, the cuts made in transfer payments to the provinces and in employment insurance have resulted in the number of welfare recipients increasing by 200,000? According to a recent study by Montreal economist Fortin, there are now 730,000 more Canadians on welfare. This is not necessarily good news.
My colleague also talked about how great the millennium scholarships were, saying “Ask any student in Canada; they'll tell you how great the Prime Minister's scholarships are”.
Perhaps my hon. colleague could ask Nicholas Ducharme, the president of the Quebec students' association, who views these millennium scholarships as an ego trip on the part of the Prime Minister, in the sense that they constitute a monument to his political career.
After all the cuts made in health and education, if it really cared about the student debt load, this government might have given this money directly to the students and right away, not two or three years down the road and without creating yet another administrative structure, as suggested by Mr. Ducharme, this student who is the president of the Quebec student's association. Indeed, he suggested that the federal government should give the money immediately to the students through the existing grants and loans system, which is excellent in Quebec.
I would like to know if my hon. colleague thinks that the increase in the number of people living on welfare in Canada is a good thing and that introducing these millennium scholarships is really an ego trip on the part of the Prime Minister.
Supply February 10th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to my hon. colleague for Mississauga West, a region I know well.
My brother, Maurice Marchand, lives in the riding of Mississauga West, and, like me as a Franco-Ontarian, is quite familiar with the treatment afforded francophones in Ontario.
Contrary to what my hon. colleague has just said or wants to have us believe, francophones have not been treated well in Ontario. The very opposite is true. In the history of Canada, if there is one province that is more responsible for mistreatment and for failing to respect the rights of francophones outside Quebec, it is Ontario. It prohibited teaching in French for nearly 50 years and only in recent years has it granted francophones their own schools. This is another issue I would have liked to tackle. It is a bit off topic, but it is related to the Quebec issue.
It shows once again how little respect is accorded the French language in Canada, and the very same thing can be seen in Quebec as well. Canada has not found a way to honour the integrity and unique character of Quebec. The uniqueness of its character is ignored despite the fact that Quebec has for many years expressed a need for some recognition.
In the past, a number of referendums were held. Changes in federalism promised to Quebec never materialized. The member for Mississauga West is trying to tell us, like a number of members on the other side of the House, the federalism and the Canadian Constitution have changed. It is true, but do they not think the federal government's stand on Quebec has hardened in the process?
Is its reference to the supreme court to prevent Quebeckers from freely expressing their will and their decision to become an independent country not further proof that the federal government has taken a tougher stand with Quebec rather than really honouring its claims for several years?
Supply February 10th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I seems to me that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine does not recognize the Quebeckers' ability to understand when she would have us believe that the Quebec people did not understand correctly the two questions that were put to them in 1980 and 1995.
Of course they understood them correctly. We must recall that promises were made to Quebec by big federal guns, Pierre Trudeau at the time and later Jean Chrétien, and these promises were broken. Quebec has always wanted to command respect within Canada but we have been denied that as well when Canada failed to recognize Quebec's distinct nature. I would say that there is a solid basis for Quebec's frustration, which make us want to get Quebec out of Canada.
There is nothing antidemocratic in wanting to go through the referendum process again and it does not confuse the issue. It is entirely democratic. But once again, in spite of the demands made in the past to show respect to Quebec, the federal government is the one who failed to fulfil this requirement, making a reference to the Supreme Court and failing to acknowledge the Quebeckers' ability to understand and Quebec's determination to freely decide its future.
It seems to me that the hon. member should also recognize that the process was not antidemocratic in the past, was not intended to confuse anything and was not dishonest. It was not an attempt to manipulate. On the contrary, we were quite clear, still are and will continue to be until—
Ice Storm February 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the people of Québec East for their solidarity toward the victims of January's ice storm. Their generosity meant that a very large number of people were able to receive assistance.
I would like to draw particular attention to the initiative of Mayor Émile Loranger of Ancienne-Lorette, which provided assistance to over 3,000 victims.
The city hall served as the control centre for co-ordinating free accommodations for 1,025 people from Saint-Hyacinthe and Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu in more than 15 hotels. In addition, some thirty city employees and a number of volunteers were also involved in the operation, canvassing numerous companies for assistance.
Thanks to all those who were so generous with their assistance, Ancienne-Lorette's Operation Ice Storm Solidarity was a resounding success.
Congratulations to all those involved.
Supply November 25th, 1997
Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the question of the hon. member from the Reform Party to the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood. He was asking about possible consultations in Quebec.
It seems clear to me that there have been consultations in Quebec about several things within Canada. I would like to ask my friend, whose speech I really enjoyed, whether he thinks it is necessary to have a consultation in Quebec, when the population has already expressed, on several occasions, it dissatisfaction about staying in Canada? Does he really think that it would add something new?