Jean-Paul Marchand

[Petitions, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition signed by more than 2,000 people from my riding of Québec-Est and from several regions of Quebec.

The petitioners want to draw Parliament's attention to the situation of the Maraloï family, now living in Vanier. This family has been in Canada for three years, is fully integrated to the Quebec community, and is self-supporting. That family was denied the right to remain in Canada, and it is believed that its members will be in serious danger if they return to Romania.

Therefore, the petitioners ask Parliament to convince the Minister of Immigration to reconsider his department's decision to deport the Maraloï family and allow that family to remain in Canada. I give my full support to that petition and I urge the government to act on it.

[Immigration, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to denounce an inhuman situation experienced by a Romanian family from my constituency, Mr. and Mrs. Maraloï and their two sons, who have been in Canada for three years. As soon as they arrived here, they started the procedures with the department of immigration to straighten out their situation in Canada. These people made a lot of effort to integrate themselves to the Quebec community. They never asked for any form of government assistance. The academic successes of the children illustrate how well integrated they are. This is a model family.

Yet, the applications made by that family have been rejected because authorities feel that there is no proven risk of persecution if they return to Romania. So, after three years in Canada, they are told they must go back. This is inhuman. Are we going to celebrate the International Year of the Family by uprooting these people from the community in which they have settled and are appreciated, and by deporting them to a country where they no longer have anything and where they have every reason to believe they will be in danger?

1609

[Business Of Supply, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the comments of the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. I understood, from her remarks, that she really cares about social housing, all the more so since she was director of the largest social housing complex in Toronto for a while. She even said, and I quote: "Adequate shelter is a fundamental right". It is a concern that we share, of course.

However, there is a lot of confusion on the government's part because, even with all the nice principles being laid out, the good intentions and the rhetoric, it seems that we cannot find out what the government really thinks about this issue. A while ago, someone asked if the government was willing to implement a social housing construction program, and we got no answer. Also, when I put a question to the Minister of Public Works, he could not tell me if he is opposed to rent increases for social housing units.

I would ask the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore if she would agree to rent increases for social housing units in order to pay for the construction of more units.

[Business Of Supply, February 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, many of my constituents who live in low-cost housing in my riding have made representations; they are quite numerous. Their income is not high and they are very concerned by a possible 25 to 30 per cent rent increase .

Could the minister tell us today if I can go back to my riding and reassure my constituents by telling them their rent will not increase following the next budget?

[Vancouver Harbour, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, what sort of delay does the minister intend to give to concerned parties before imposing this special law because it is very important. The minister knows that as long as western grain sits in the Vancouver port, Canadian grain farmers are not being paid.

[Vancouver Harbour, February 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Human Resources Development. I too would like to raise the issue of the labour dispute which has been paralysing Vancouver harbour and, consequently, has brought to a halt the export of millions of tons of Canadian agricultural products.

Has the minister asked the mediator, whom he appointed, for a report on this labour dispute and, if so, will he make it public?

[Social Security System, February 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciated the comments made by the hon. member from British Columbia.

I gathered from what he said that he was a university teacher for a number of years, like me I might add. I especially appreciated his comments on education. I agree with him totally when he says that education is fundamental, essential, and that we must do our utmost to have a good education system because it is really basic, not only if we want to create lasting employment, but also if we want to promote a more democratic society, an imaginative and innovative society in all areas.

Of course, much could be said about education. I disagree however with one of his remarks. I have no doubt that the hon. member is an experienced teacher as well as an intelligent man, but I have some difficulty with this idea of national standards in education. Certainly not at the university level. There is no need for that whatsoever. Several Canadian universities excel while relying on their own means to achieve high levels in research and quality. That is a given.

In fact, academic work is clearly one of freedom and independence. I see absolutely no value in national standards. Even at the high school or elementary level, it seems to me that one of great things about education is this freedom of expression, this freedom to discover, this freedom enjoyed even with the teacher.

I find that, in Canada, we have too many standards, too many national standards, too many government-imposed restrictions as it is. We do not need more national standards, we need less. We need teachers, at all levels, to be freer to provide young people with the kind of education that best relates to their life experience.

[Social Security System, January 31st, 1994]

It is a new rule that I just learned. I apologize.

On January 24, I asked the following question of the Minister of Agriculture:

Can we now conclude that the minister is still trying to protect supply management while he is currently negotiating with the Americans the complete abolition, in the next seven years, of tariffs on yogurt and ice cream?

The minister replied, and I quote:

In whatever discussions we may have with the United States the interests of those producers will be front and centre in our thinking.

He also said: "Again I assure the hon. member and all farmers that the interests of Canadian agriculture in all parts of this country are very much on the top of the government's mind."

He obviously did not answer the question and negotiations with the United States have since ended without the matter being resolved. Therefore, it seems to me that we have the right to know more about the negotiations on yogurt and ice cream.

But first, to answer the minister's question, I will remind him that there is no mention of agriculture in the throne speech and that the Prime Minister himself seems not to know and to misunderstand agriculture, judging from comments he has made lately and the fact that he did not intervene in the crucial stages of the GATT negotiations-in fact, he was on holidays at that time-and so far, he has not done anything. He said nothing on behalf of farmers during crucial negotiations that were held recently, last week in fact, while the President of the United States spoke many times to defend American wheat producers. Therefore I would say that the comment of the Minister of Agriculture, to the effect that the vital interests of Canadian agriculture in all parts of this country are very much on the top of the Liberal government's mind, has no foundation whatsoever.

To go back to the point I raised in my question and to which the Minister did not answer, now that negotiations have been completed, it should be possible to get some clarification because farmers, particularly in the dairy industry, are worried since it seems that the government of Canada and the Minister of Agriculture are knuckling under to American pressure.

Can he tell us today, since the GATT takes precedence over NAFTA, that he will fight for the tariffs already put forward to protect ice cream and yogurt in Canada, i.e. 326 per cent for ice cream and 279 per cent for yogurt? Will the government of Canada keep fighting for these tariffs for those two commodities in Canada? And will they try to settle this issue by appealing to a panel with the Americans so that we get some clarification and some peace for farmers in that industry?

[Social Security System, January 31st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed to see that the Minister of Agriculture is not here today to answer my question.

[Social Security System, January 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the minister, this morning, I really have the feeling that the government wants to opt out of the social programs, which does not come as a surprise to me, since the Liberal government is following in the footsteps of the Conservative Party. It is a well-known fact. For several months now, the media have been telling us that the Liberal government wants to withdraw from social programs, because of a lack of money.

Faced with Canada's enormous deficit, the Liberals want to dump it in the provinces' backyard as much as possible. Besides, it has been estimated that by the year 2000 the federal government will put no money in social programs. That responsibility will be left to the provinces, but the federal government will keep establishing national standards and criteria, which is totally ridiculous.

The federal government is developing standards for all provinces to follow, while it will be the responsibility of the provinces to pay for these programs. That goes to show how ludicrous the present federal system is, so ludicrous in fact that it convinced Quebecers they had to opt out early.