That is not the reality.
Lost his last election, in 1997, with 36% of the vote.
Budgetary Policy November 28th, 1994
That is not the reality.
Budgetary Policy November 28th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the comments made by my colleague from the Reform Party and I think he is right on the issue of early language training. However, that is not what I want to talk about. What bothers me a little is his proposal to transfer language and culture to the provinces.
We know full well that if Canada implemented the hon. member's proposal at this time-since I have always thought that Canada was an artificial country kept together from coast to coast to coast by the policy of the two official languages-, we would have a problem because we in Quebec have a long tradition.
As you know, Quebec anglophones have their own elementary and secondary schools as well as their own school boards, hospitals and universities in and outside Montreal. So this is not a problem for Quebec but I think that francophones in the rest of Canada would lose all their services, which would be very dangerous. I do not know if the hon. member has thought about it, but I think that there would be no problem in Quebec but that francophones in the rest of Canada would simply lose their services. Could he comment on this?
Budgetary Policy November 28th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. government member with great interest and I would like to tell her that the deficit we are currently experiencing was initially caused by the Liberals in previous years and then fed by this deficit caused by the Conservatives. So, the two old parties are equally responsible for the economic disaster we are now faced with.
The member delivered a speech fit for the Canadian Club or an audience of scholars at a university. Now I think that the House of Commons is a place where things have to be put in pragmatic and practical terms. Her speech was packed with lip service, with pious wishes as to what the government could do. However, the people do not want to know what the government could do, but rather what it will do to resolve the problem. That is what matters. Any member of this House can rise and say fine words that do not add up to much and I was very disappointed.
The people of Canada and Quebec expect from government that it take its responsibilities, but we have been denied this from day one by the government across the way.
We will recall, Mr. Speaker, that at the time the red book came out, we were supposed to be able to find all the answers in it. As it turns out, after all these consultations and delays, this government is no further ahead than it was a year ago, the reason being that it does not know what to do. It keeps delaying and delaying and delaying. The people of Canada want answers now.
The problem is that in the 1970s, this Liberal government took steps to distribute wealth, which in itself was very commendable, but now, it is distributing the deficit. I would like my hon. colleague to tell me how the government intends to distribute the deficit, all the while ensuring that the underprivileged, the poor and the middle class will not be targeted as the ones having to pay the greatest part of this deficit.
Situation In Bosnia November 24th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, 55 Canadian peacekeepers are now surrounded by Serb rebel forces in Bosnia. It is not the first time Canadian troops find themselves in a difficult situation because of hostile acts by fighters in the former Yugoslavia.
Nevertheless, the illegal actions of Serb forces against international peacekeeping forces in Bosnia worry all Quebecers and Canadians. The Bosnian population is literally torn apart by the fighting that goes on, but it could suffer even more this winter without the presence of the peacekeepers.
Our soldiers are carrying out their humanitarian duties in the former Yugoslavia with courage and dignity, and the members of the Bloc Quebecois are very proud of them. The federal government and the international community must continue to provide them with all the support they deserve.
Flags Of Convenience November 4th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, this government takes so long to solve problems. The issue was raised five months ago.
What sort of example is the Minister of Transport setting for shipowners by operating Canadian government ships under the Bahamian flag?
Flags Of Convenience November 4th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Last spring, the Official Opposition asked the minister about two ships belonging to the Canadian government that were flying the flag of the Bahamas. At the time, the minister indicated that he would check on the reasons of such a practice and provide a valid explanation.
Can the Minister of Transport tell us if he checked the facts and corrected the situation?
National Defence November 1st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, in its dissenting report tabled yesterday, the Bloc Quebecois demands that the Minister of National Defence proceed with a complete review of military spending, in particular the purchase of submarines, taking into account the new missions the armed forces will have to undertake in the years to come.
The measures proposed in the majority report of the special joint committee do not go far enough. The Minister of National Defence must come up with a realistic budget, in keeping with the catastrophic situation we are in because of the deficit. The minister must try harder to streamline operations to cut some $1.6 billion.
The government must show more courage and tackle a deficit which is eroding the future of our children.
Bloc Quebecois October 25th, 1994
One year ago, Quebecers gave a resolutely sovereignist party a mandate to protect their interests at the federal level. This is precisely what we have done by fighting cigarette smuggling and obtaining a reduction of taxes, by opposing the closure of the military college in Saint-Jean, by supporting the poor, by questioning the government on the activities of the secret service, and by forcing it to repay the costs of the referendum on the Charlottetown accord.
From issues of defence and social justice to the need for responsible fiscal policies, the Bloc Quebecois has won battles on several fronts.
The message given to us by our voters is clear: Keep on going! This is exactly what we intend to do.
Bloc Quebecois October 25th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, today marks the first anniversary of the Bloc Quebecois in the House of Commons.
Social Security Program October 24th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, on October 5, the Minister of Human Resources Development unveiled a document entitled: "Agenda: Jobs and Growth-Improving Social Security in Canada".
First, I would like to say that this work plan is misleading, and that the title itself is tantamount to false representation. Of course, the green book deals with jobs, but to my utter disappointment and that of all those who read it, growth is never mentioned.
It says on page 19, and I quote:
Many Canadian families lost economic ground during the 1980s and early 1990s. Overall, the average disposable household income has not grown since the early 1980s.
In recent years, increasing numbers of Canadians who cannot find jobs have turned to social assistance.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, more than three million people depend on social assistance, and this does not include some 960,000 workers who currently receive unemployment insurance. This, of course, does not include those who qualify neither for social assistance nor for unemployment insurance. This is a disgraceful and intolerable situation in a country which claims to have the best social security system in the world.
When faced with such facts, how can the minister argue that he is talking about growth! He should have added the word debt in the title. It would have read: The growth of the debt and the social security of the future. It would have been a much more accurate title for his discussion paper and for the measures he intends to propose.
To me, this draft action plan is simply a monograph on the state of employment in this country and the incapacity of federal programs to answer job creation needs.
The social security that the minister is seeking for the future in Canada will disappear sooner or later. This is the real agenda of the Minister of Human Resources Development and of the federal government he represents.
I should also say that the Prime Minister's speech conceals the real intentions of his government. He tried to make us believe that he feels for those who can no longer find jobs. In a speech before the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, he said: "We do not provide Canadians with sufficient assistance to find jobs and to keep their jobs. They do not get enough help from us to acquire the knowledge and expertise that will allow them to compete world-wide".
Paradoxically, this reform proposal, apparently designed to help the government make its system more cost-effective, will bring about major cuts in UI benefits, index-linked cuts in provincial transfer payments for social assistance and substantial cuts in provincial transfer payments for post-secondary education.
The Prime Minister talks about investing in our human resources and in learning. Why does his minister suggest that cuts be made in manpower training and income security programs then? Whom are we to believe? The Minister of Human Resources Development, the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance, who is calling for major cuts? Which of them are we to believe?
The real purpose of this social programs reform is not to promote job creation and learning but rather to initiate the Minister of Finance's budget cuts. And this means cutting blindly in social programs across the board.
A secret document submitted to the federal Cabinet and published by the Toronto Star on October 5, indicated that another $7.5 billion in cuts over the next five years were contemplated, in addition to the $7.5 billion already announced in the last budget.
Furthermore, the Minister of Human Resources Development tells us on page 23 of his paper:
If further measures are required to achieve the government's deficit target, they will be included in the 1995 Budget.
Mr. Speaker, they could not be more explicit.
The federal government's main objectives are clear: the first is literally to cut social programs and the second is to take control over areas of provincial jurisdiction, by maintaining a unilateral decision.
From reading the green paper, I see that most of the options presented are centralizing. So what are the Liberal government's real intentions?
First, it wants to take back large amounts from the poor and the middle class, then it sneaks into areas of provincial jurisdiction without even touching on the Canadian Constitution.
We must admit that the federal Liberal government timed its operation well. It waited for the results of the election in Quebec to present its draft working plan. Moreover, the minister now thinks that he can delay tabling his reform until the fall of 1995.
We now understand why the Prime Minister insists that Quebec hold the referendum on sovereignty within eight to ten months. The Prime Minister wants Quebecers to vote in the referendum before the social program reform is tabled.
The minister cannot go on hiding his intentions on the pretext that he wants to consult the people and the provinces some more. What, quite frankly, has this government been doing for a year now but consulting and reconsulting? And without really doing that much, we might add.
Since the minister showed no consideration for the first phase of consultation on unemployment insurance reform, why would it be different for his social program reform?
We in Quebec note that the federal government's timetable is based mainly on political events in Quebec, which confirms our fear that it wants to attack the jurisdiction of Quebec and of the other provinces.
As the Official Opposition party in the House of Commons, the Bloc Quebecois will participate in the reform consultation process, even though we feel that the government has already made its bed. Be assured, Mr. Speaker, that we will be there to defend Quebecers' interests. We also hope that the minister will have the decency to table his reform before the referendum on Quebec sovereignty.
Quebecers have a right to know what the federal government is plotting behind this whole reform. They will not be had a second time like in 1980. As we all remember, to win his cause, Prime Minister Trudeau told the people that no meant yes, and we know what happened next, namely the unilateral repatriation of the Constitution without Quebec's consent, followed by the rejection of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.
My colleagues from Timiskaming and Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, who sit on the Standing Committee on Finance, have already made concrete and realistic suggestions for eliminating the federal deficit without touching social programs. These suggestions are as follows. First, recovering bad debts, which would bring in some $6 billion. Second, the federal government's complete withdrawal from areas of provincial jurisdiction, which would generate at least $3 billion. Third, reforming taxation of family trusts, which would bring in between $300 million and $400 million. Fourth, cutting subsidies to unproductive and non-competitive businesses, which could save $3.3 billion. Fifth, cutting the defence budget by $1.6 billion. Sixth, withdrawing at once from Hibernia, which will cost federal coffers $250 million this year. These are concrete measures proposed by the Official Opposition to help eliminate the federal deficit without touching social programs.
In conclusion, this paper should have put more emphasis on the diversity of our labour markets and, as indicated by the polls commissioned by the Department of Human Resources Development, on the need to delegate to the provinces the responsibility of employment services programs as well as vocational training for welfare recipients.
Instead, with its reform, the federal government persists in trying to reduce the deficit at the expense of the poorest and of the middle class. The Liberal government targets those who already have nothing, namely the poor. In its discussion paper, the government uses the word employment in an abusive way, for there is no mention of any job creation strategy in it. Instead of tackling the problems of waste, mismanagement and lack of jobs, the federal government now targets the unemployed and the middle class.
I will end by saying that a member of Parliament also has a responsibility to protect the poorest in our society. We must represent all our fellow citizens and in particular those who are most often victim of prejudice or rejection: the poor, the unemployed, our seniors and, in particular, our young families. I sincerely think that this social program reform will not solve any of the problems which the government wants to tackle.
A motion to adjourn to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 is deemed to have been moved.