Jean H. Leroux

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the position taken by my colleague for Mercier regarding the amendment to Bill C-17 which changes the rules applicable to Unemployment Insurance.

Using as a base provisions contained in the 1994 Budget, the government has considerably changed the rules of the game as far as UI is concerned, without resorting to a special bill. I stress that fact, because the proposed changes are more than a simple change of rules.

This is the end of the redistributional effect of Unemployment Insurance. What people should realize is that workers should not be penalized for the lethargic state of our economy, especially when the government was elected on the promise that it would create hundreds of thousands of jobs and now looks idly-yes, idly, Mr. Speaker-at the waste of government money and at the sclerosis of its finances.

Up to now, the government has refused to debate its fiscal policy with the opposition. Moreover, it rejected the proposal of the Bloc Quebecois to create a committee to study all budgetary expenditures. However, without any consultation, the government decided to cut into UI, without putting into place the means to help workers. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Liberal members: Where are the jobs they promised during last fall election campaign?

Now that Liberals are in power, do they not fear the mounting discontent among taxpayers? It seems to me that my colleagues opposite, high in their ivory tower, do not realize the seriousness of the situation. They have lost touch with the reality of the employment market. What we need is an economic policy based on employment. We do not need unjustifiable and discriminatory measures aimed at the less well-off, which leave thousands of families with no alternatives and no hope.

As my colleague, the member for Mercier, said so eloquently in the speech she made in the House on March 25, the amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act do not reduce the inequities between the rich and the poor of our country, on the contrary. The announced changes do not provide for any specific measure reducing youth unemployment. Finally, these changes do not cancel out the raise in UI premiums of workers and businesses as of January 1st, 1994.

Several things bother me. What is the real purpose behind these changes in the Unemployment Insurance Act? Does the government really want to tackle the problems of unemployment and the labour market or does it simply want to hide its true intentions and have the middle class and the less well-off pay the bill?

The Minister of Finance announced recently in his budget that public expenditure control was one of the main goals of his government. I agree that such a goal of fiscal consolidation is necessary and even noble, but I am surprised and worried that close to 60 per cent of the projected drop in the federal deficit, some $2.4 billion out of a total of $4.1 billion, will be assumed by the unemployed, who are 1.607 million in Canada and 452,000 in Quebec.

According to the Minister of Finance, at least 85 per cent of the unemployed will see their benefits reduced. It is easy to figure out. Is it not strange when one is advocating social values and equity, as the Liberal government did so well?

In terms of equity, the government is making the unemployed pay the bill for its fiscal consolidation. That is an absolutely disproportionate share of the burden. We ask much more from the unemployed than from wealthier groups.

The Minister of Human Resources Development announced drastic measures regarding workers who lose their jobs. He said: "The proposed changes prejudge in no way of the social security system reform. These interim measures were necessary and constitute positive steps. At the same time, we are making additional savings by reducing duplication".

What the minister means is that tighter eligibility requirements, combined to a shorter benefit period, will force UI recipients off UI and onto welfare. These interim, positive steps will cost taxpayers in the various provinces at least $1 billion; Quebec taxpayers alone will have to pay $289 million. What do they take us for! Not all of us are wearing blinkers.

Basically, the federal government is making budget savings at the expense of Quebec's 452,000 unemployed and Canada's 1,607,000 unemployed. I am afraid that reducing the benefit period will be totally ineffective and that this measure will actually be counterproductive and fall short of the official objective.

Increasing the unemployment insurance qualifying period from 10 weeks to 12 could affect many of the thousands of seasonal workers in the eastern part of Quebec, to say nothing of Atlantic Canada.

Sixty per cent of UI cuts will be borne by Quebec and the Maritimes, two regions where we find the people who will be most affected by the increase in the number of weeks required to qualify for benefits. In other words, the fishing, tourist, forest and construction industries will be the hardest hit by this reform. That is unacceptable!

To wrap up, unemployment insurance reform reflects the Liberals contempt for the unemployed. The Minister of Human Resources Development admitted to pursuing the following objective: to force recipients to work longer to be eligible for the same number of weeks of benefits. As if the unemployed chose not to work!

But that is not where the problem lies. So, it is not by tightening eligibility requirements and reducing the number of weeks of benefits that the unemployment problem will be resolved. Unemployment in Quebec and Canada is due to a lack of jobs for everyone and people have to go from one temporary job to another. The proposed reform will do nothing to solve the problem of insecure jobs, on the contrary.

The government claims that the decision to lower the unemployment insurance premium rate from $3.07 to $3 per $100 of insurable income in 1995 and 1996 will create 40,000 jobs by 1996. There is something wrong with that! Last December, this

same government raised the premium rate from $3.00 to $3.07. Moreover, this Liberal government, by its own admission, eliminated 9,000 jobs on January 1 because of this increase in premiums for employers and employees. Is that not sufficient proof that the government's proposed reform is ineffective? And part of this reform is already in effect, to boot.

What does the government really want to do with this reform? Are all the facts that I have just given you not enough to prove that the proposed reform is not appropriate and that it will do more harm than good?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Béthanie is a small municipality. On election day, there is only one polling station, and the majority of people there voted for the Bloc Quebecois. Since they live on the periphery of the riding, they have asked to remain part of Shefford, and that to me is what is important. The people who make up the constituency are the ones who should have the last word.

And we are going to stand up for these people and defend the interests of these small municipalities. I think they have their say in this matter.

A member is elected to represent all the residents of his or her riding. What this bill does is divide my riding in two and make the constituents who will have to leave the riding feel like temporary residents. To me, that is unacceptable. I think we should not let these citizens down, and I certainly have no intention of doing so. All of my constituents are entitled to equitable services.

Members are elected to represent their ridings and that is what we are doing here, in this House. Each and every one of us, whatever our political affiliation is, has a role to play, which is to represent our constituents. We also have the privilege to sit in this House and speak when we want to. This is a privilege which is not extended to all citizens. The people put their trust in us and we are here to represent their views. When we rise to speak in this House, we talk on behalf of our constituents. On the matter of electoral boundaries readjustment, our task is made very easy. We intend to make our position known to the Commission, because we think it is fair and equitable. If there are some municipalities which have not expressed the desire to stay in Shefford, we respect their decision. However, the vast majority of municipalities which are affected want to remain part of Shefford. As a member of Parliament, I intend to protect the interests of these people.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as you rightly stated, last October 25, I was elected to represent the riding of Shefford. Let me first describe my wonderful riding. As you know, the region was settled by a group of Americans who came to Canada when the United States seceded from England. Thus, it is part of Quebec's Eastern Townships.

Over time, the boundaries of the riding changed and now include part of Montérégie, and, as I mentioned, part of the riding is in the Eastern Townships.

Shefford is partly an urban riding. The main city is Granby, a well-organized industrial city. The people of Granby are hard-working and they are proud of their roots.

I have lived virtually all my life in Shefford. At times, I moved from one area to another, but I never left the riding.

A proposal has been made to change my riding, to reduce its size. Other ridings would be extended while mine would be reduced to the size of the provincial riding of Shefford, including the town of Bromont. As you know, there is much discussion these days about Bromont, because of the Hyundai plant. Bromont is currently my neighbour. I would like members in the House to know that Bromont was previously known as West Shefford. This city was then part of the former riding of Shefford. Of course, we would welcome its constituents in the proposed new riding of Shefford, but, to do so, we would have to lose an entire section of the riding. So, the sector which includes Saint-Paul-d'Abbotsford, Saint-Césaire and Marieville is to be removed.

In fact, my riding is being downsized tremendously, while the neighbouring one, Chambly, will become extremely large with a population of over 100,000. While my constituency would have some 72,000 or 75,000 people, the one next to it would become exceedingly large.

I believe that the role of a member of Parliament is to represent his or her constituents. I think one of the objectives of this bill is to make ridings more or less equal in terms of population. If this is the case, we are missing the boat because, as I was saying, my constituency is going to become much less populated, while neighbouring ridings will be much larger.

In view of this situation, I decided to consult the municipalities. I asked members of my staff to consult municipalities and also contact other political parties in the riding. Because as you know, Mr. Speaker, we Bloc Quebecois members do not aspire to remain part of Canada, part of the Government of Canada any longer than necessary. However, one thing is certain: we have to think about the interests of those whom we represent.

As my colleague was saying earlier, we do not know what the future holds, but if what we want to do here cannot be fully achieved, Quebeckers will continue to be represented here in Ottawa, which is something we do not wish, as I mentioned earlier. It is in the interests of our constituents that we consulted a large number of our municipalities, if not all of them, since one of them told us that it did not really care. As you know, there are municipalities close to the boundaries which change ridings every time a readjustment is made. The municipality of Saint-Valérien, in Shefford, told us that it would like to become part of the beautiful riding of Saint-Hyacinthe.

We can certainly understand that, since the residents of Saint-Valérien have constantly been moved from one riding to the other following these readjustments, but this is somewhat unfortunate. These people do not feel as close to the heart of the riding which is the city of Granby.

On the other hand, the municipalities of Saint-Césaire, Saint-Paul-d'Abbotsford and L'Ange-Gardien, all beautiful villages which I hope you will come to visit when you have a chance, Mr. Speaker, have sent us council resolutions asking that they remain in the riding of Shefford because they feel part of it. These people have always gone shopping in Granby on Thursday or Friday evening. They do their business in that city. I believe that it would be somewhat unfortunate for them to become part of another riding.

The small municipality of Béthanie sent me a fax of its council resolution which I want to read because I find it interesting:

Whereas if the electoral boundaries readjustment is approved, the electoral quota of Shefford would only be 73,351, which is less than the majority of other constituencies; Whereas Béthanie is located very close to Granby and several services are provided to us by Granby, including ambulances, provincial police, hospital and other services, the municipality of Béthanie wishes to remain part of the constituency of Shefford, since it participated in the election of its member of Parliament, Jean Leroux, and it wishes to keep being represented by him. It is also easier to communicate with him, since there is no long distance charge and since his office is closer to our area.

This resolution was carried unanimously, Mr. Speaker.

[Hyundai Car Plant In Bromont, March 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it was with dismay that we heard about Hyundai's decision to suspend indefinitely the operation of its facilities in Bromont. Over 800 workers will be affected.

The Bloc Quebecois and the people of my region are outraged. Must I remind that Hyundai received substantial grants from the federal government to build its facilities in Bromont?

Now, we are told that company officials refuse to meet the primary stakeholders to discuss the situation. How can a company like Hyundai treat its workers so offhandedly?

The Bloc Quebecois urges the federal government to act immediately to preserve these workers' jobs as well as to make sure this never happens again. More than ever, the government must manage public funds with a strong hand.

[Hyundai Car Plant, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says he is disappointed. Well, the people in my region are disappointed as well. Should Hyundai refuse to reopen its plant in Bromont, has the government considered another alternative which would at least preserve the 825 high-tech jobs now in Bromont?

[Hyundai Car Plant, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Over the weekend, we learned that the Hyundai plant in Bromont would be suspending its operations indefinitely in the Eastern Townships. Hyundai will be laying off more than 800 highly skilled workers whose average age is between 25 and 30.

Given the scope of the federal grants awarded to the Hyundai automobile plant, what conditions did the government impose on the company to guarantee that it would reopen the Bromont facilities, thus preserving jobs?

[Electronic Highway, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a second question. To avoid looking too much like the Conservatives, whom the government denounced on many occasions in the past, does the minister not agree that the government should be more open and involve the public and Parliament in the work of this committee?

[Electronic Highway, March 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

The electronic highway will have a major impact on many aspects of society such as consumer activity, personal privacy, industry and education, to name only these. We have learned that the committee that will develop the government's strategy will meet behind closed doors.

My main question is this: Given the electronic highway's strategic and determining role in the economy, how can the minister justify his decision to have this committee hold its discussions behind closed doors?

[The Late Gilbert Rondeau, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, I was very sad to hear about the death of Gilbert Rondeau, who represented my riding of Shefford from 1962 to 1965 and from 1968 to 1979.

When I was a student at the University of Ottawa I had the pleasure of seeing him here in the House and of going to his office. He was always pleasant, colourful, and available to give me the documentation I needed for my assignments.

As you know, Gilbert Rondeau was the right-hand man of Réal Caouette from the Social Credit Party of Canada, as well as a worthy representative for the riding of Shefford. Let us not forget that it is the Creditistes who, when they arrived in this House, forced Parliament to provide simultaneous interpretation of House proceedings.

All his life Gilbert Rondeau was a man of action, a defender of the people, and a friend of the poor. On behalf of my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois and of my constituents in the riding of Shefford, I want to offer my deepest sympathies to Mrs. Rondeau, to his daughter Micheline Rondeau-Parent, who is a clerk in this House, and to his children and grandchildren.

[Linguistic Minorities, March 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, Quebec anglophones enjoy rights they are guaranteed under the British North America Act. Quebec has always respected the rights of its minorities.

For the benefit of the members of this House and Canadians who are watching, I would like to name some of the benefits

enjoyed by the anglophone community in Quebec. First of all, Montreal, where most of the anglophone population lives, has a complete network of hospitals that function in English. They also have two major universities in Montreal-McGill and Concordia-and Bishop's University in the Eastern Townships. They have their own school system at the primary, secondary and college level, entirely subsidized by Quebec.

Quebec has always treated its minorities well, because we know what it means to be a minority, Mr. Speaker. I invite all members from the other provinces to come and visit Quebec to see for themselves.