Paul Crête

[Unemployment Insurance, April 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

According to an internal report of the Department of Human Resources Development, the unemployment insurance changes announced in the last budget will deprive some 44,000 people of UI benefits and put 19,000 on welfare.

How can the minister justify his changes to the unemployment insurance program when they clearly restrict access to UI benefits and increase welfare rolls, without offering these thousands of people any job creation alternative?

[Manpower Training, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister and his colleagues from the Liberal Party demonstrated once more that they are incapable of understanding the legitimate aspirations of Quebeckers, when they described as a "whim" the formidable consensus achieved in Quebec around the need to patriate all powers relating to manpower training.

This consensus was achieved among educational networks, labour confederations, the Forum sur l'emploi, the Mouvement Desjardins as well as the Conseil du patronat du Québec, which can hardly be accused of being infiltrated by "big, bad separatists".

Far from being a "whim", this demand is one of the cornerstones of a real employment strategy to finally free Quebec from the state of dependency it is kept in by inefficient federal programs. It is essential to Quebec's development.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to comment on the speech by my colleague from Richmond-Wolfe. In my opinion, his comments were most relevant to this debate, unlike what the government member had to say.

He spoke at length about decentralization. I would like him to explain to us a little more how he would go about ensuring that

the will of local communities is respected if and when the process of redrawing the electoral map is undertaken.

[Product Packaging, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on March 18, 1994, I put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister concerning her sensitivity to the plight of the unemployed.

I realized how powerless the Deputy Prime Minister was in the face of the unemployment problem. Since then, I have also come to realize how powerless the Minister of Finance is and how he has failed to take any action to address the situation. In the words of Mr. Laurent Laplante, a respected journalist, "by focusing all of their efforts on wrestling the inflation monster to the ground, the Conservatives ended up dragging the country into the first ever made-in-Canada recession. Mr. Martin has decided to go one step further and make the recession permanent."

As a complement to the question I am going to ask, and to which the minister did not really answer, I would like to echo the voice of that young engineer who stunned everyone at the seminar on employment, a few days ago, when he said that he had a master's degree in a very specialized field and nobody was able to find him a job. This sort of broke the empty rhetoric usually heard at such gatherings.

I would like to know whether or not the government has a job creation strategy based on some government action, and really established as a primary objective of the government. At the present time, we only see some sprinkling here and there. The infrastructure program will create almost no jobs for women and, anyway, it is just a drop in the unemployment bucket. There are no programs for specific groups either.

Was anything announced for unskilled workers? What do we have for graduates in various trades, technologists or university graduates? Is there anything specific to ensure the recovery of entrepreurship in Quebec and Canada?

I would like the government to finally give us some answers on this and really get to work instead of riding the wave as far as job creation is concerned.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I spoke in the first debate on this bill, we accepted the two-year delay. The Reform Party's arguments against this delay were not considered valid, but we understood that they were fundamentally opposed to it.

However, today we are faced with an in-between position which I think is the worst of the worst. This amendment would have the consultation go on so long that I think it is totally inefficient. I think that over the Easter break, when we were in our ridings more, the people clearly told us that they had other concerns besides redrawing the electoral map. People in Quebec and Canada now want someone to really fight unemployment; they do not want to be satisfied with crumbs like the infrastructure program.

As for the deficit, people were so amazed by the decisions of this government which, after crying wolf for months, brought forth a mouse. When we tell them that we will debate whether the reform of the electoral map should proceed right away, in two years or be amended after twelve months, they think that we are not doing the work we are paid to do. I think that the Reform Party is contradicting itself on some other essential aspects of its program.

However, some Reform members took the floor to say that the Bloc Quebecois was a party that wanted to break up Canada, that wanted to use the back door, as with Meech Lake or Charlottetown, to arrive at another kind of reform. I would like to tell them that the Charlottetown Accord was rejected not only by Quebec but by all of Canada. I think that Canadians were right to do so. They thought that they should oppose all the elected governments in Canada which were offering them something cooked up in secret that did not at all meet their needs.

As for Meech Lake, Quebec did not prevent it from being passed. Its provisions were certainly a bare minimum for Quebec, but it was not necessarily us who had it set it aside. But it made Quebeckers aware that, in the end, our problem is not a matter of plumbing but of architecture.

In this respect, for Canada to take the time to think about the electoral map is not a bad thing because we have basic decisions to make on the future structure of Canada as a whole, whether there will be two countries. It is a decision Quebeckers will be called upon to make in the near future. I think it is much more important to start off by settling the basic question of the most appropriate structure for the future we want to have.

As far as "breaking up Canada" is concerned, I would like to say that no country in the world lasts forever. Structures change and, just as the caterpillar develops into a butterfly, there is a way to change and adjust to new realities. Today's economic markets are very big; it is no longer necessary to be as big as the economic markets we are dealing with. That being the case, I think it is important to give ourselves appropriate structures. We can give ourselves enough time to think about what form the Canadian electoral map we lived with last year should take in the future, so that we can make wise decisions and take into account other factors besides population distribution.

In a region such as eastern Quebec, the proposed reform of the electoral map eliminates one riding and creates another where there is a distance of 300 kilometres between two cities. I reiterate what I said earlier: 300 kilometres in summer and 1,000 kilometres in winter. Such decisions or recommendations by a commission fulfilling its mandate under the current legislation were totally inapplicable and unacceptable, and we prepared to intervene before the electoral commission to argue for maintaining the ridings in eastern Quebec. We were ready to do so.

This bill was undoubtedly tabled late because it puts us in a funny situation where we must prepare in case passage of the bill is delayed while fulfilling our mandate as members of Parliament because, as members of the Bloc, we made a commitment to look after Quebec's interests. We are doing so now in the current context, under this government, to ensure that, if Quebeckers decide to stay within Canada, they have the best tools available. But we think they will make a different choice, especially when we see the federal Parliament spend so much time on such issues that we are entitled to question effectiveness and dual representation in Canada. I think there are more fundamental issues to put forward before spending a whole day debating whether the suspension period should be 12 or 24 months.

We could ask ourselves whether it is worthwhile to spend so much time debating this. I think the Reform Party should examine its amendments to this bill when it argues, strangely enough, that the Bloc Quebecois wants to break up Canada, since the Bloc will vote with the Government of Canada on this bill. It is not a matter of basic principles but of effectiveness, political realism and respect for the people who should have enough time to influence the political system and the electoral commissions so that future decisions take into account other factors besides the purely demographic aspects provided for in the act, as I was saying earlier.

In conclusion, I think it is important to take into account, for example, the number of municipalities or the area to be covered so that when the map is redrawn in 24 months, it will be what Quebeckers and Canadians want, unless Quebeckers decide before then to give themselves a political structure that is much more appropriate for their development.

I am confident that is what will happen in the coming year. I think we should put all our energy into making our political structures more adequate and not only into fixing the plumbing.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today on this bill to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and to voice my support for the proposed legislation because, in my view, we are not prepared to make the changes that have been recommended by the electoral boundaries commissions.

Several years ago, following a recommendation from a provincial electoral boundaries commission to eliminate a riding in the eastern part of the province of Quebec, we launched a study to determine the criteria by which a riding is defined. Our study took into account not only the population of the riding, but a number of other factors such as the overall size of the riding, the number of municipalities and regional municipalities and so forth.

It is important that we endorse this bill today and that we reject the amendment moved by the Reform Party so that we can come to a clearer understanding of what the electoral map of the future should look like.

Let me describe to you, for example, the situation in eastern Quebec. At present there are five ridings in eastern Quebec: the riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine which is represented by a Liberal MP, Mr. Patrick Gagnon; the riding of Gaspé which is represented by Bloc MP Mr. Yvan Bernier; the riding of Matapédia-Matane held by Mr. René Canuel, the riding of Rimouski-Témiscouata held by Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay and lastly, my riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. Under the proposed electoral boundaries reform, one of these ridings is slated to disappear.

Some notable differences can be found as far as the four proposed ridings are concerned. For example, according to the new electoral map, in the riding of Gaspé, more than 330 kilometres would separate the towns of Amqui and Gaspé. Or should I say a distance of 330 kilometres in the summer, and 1,000 kilometres in the winter?

Moreover, each of the existing five ridings has developed its own unique culture. These cultures have been in place for many years. They did not emerge suddenly when the ridings were created. They existed long before then. There is a certain homogenous quality to the social fabric of each riding, based on its socioeconomic calling, its distinctive geographical features and its history. The proposed redrawing of the electoral map, a process based solely on making a demographic calculation and on dividing the number of people by the number of ridings, in no way satisfies the development requirements of a region like ours.

In my opinion, other factors must be taken into consideration or else we will remain locked in a vicious circle where each time a region's population declines, the number of elected representatives will be reduced. A region represented by fewer MPs has less influence in government. Therefore, our regions will continue their downward spiral. An electoral map drawn solely on the basis of population would be a virtual insult to rural areas.

Therefore, it is important that we take the time to review the situation and find other criteria for determining electoral boundaries. All I can say is that we would prefer the status quo to a new electoral map which would wipe out a riding in eastern Quebec. If a riding was eliminated, future elected representatives would find themselves with ridings that are far too large. They would have to deal with new municipalities.

For example, in my riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup which would take in the regional municipality of Témiscouata, there would be over 60 municipalities grouped together in four different regional municipalities: Basques, 11 municipalities; Rivière-du-Loup, 16 municipalities; Kamouraska, 18 municipalities; Témiscouata, 20 municipalities. Elected representatives might need longer parliamentary breaks just to travel to the various parts of their ridings.

For instance, the population of the riding would increase from 73,747 to more than 88,000 over a really vast area. But the disappearance of a riding like that one also has a negative economic impact because it would require additional financial resources. With the economic difficulties we are now facing, there is no guarantee that the four new ridings replacing the five old ones would get more money to pursue their economic development, which would in the end compromise representation for each municipality.

If more money were made available, we would have to determine if the increase is significant and adequately meets the demands of the municipalities. This reform of the electoral map would have all kinds of administrative repercussions. For example, in the areas covered by Canada Employment Centres, various such elements do not seem relevant to us at a time when the population is feeling insecure regarding the effects of reforms, as it does in Eastern Quebec with respect to unemployment insurance. The increase in the number of weeks of work required to qualify for benefits is already something the region

must respond to quickly and come to grips with, without us adding other contradictions like reducing the number of ridings.

The commission's proposals to readjust the current boundaries of Eastern Quebec ridings raise many questions. I speak as the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup but also as chairman of the Bloc Quebecois caucus from Eastern Quebec. I also think all members from the East are surely aware of the impact such a decision would have. We would much prefer to maintain the status quo and, in that sense, the bill would allow the elections commission to gain time, maybe to think of other criteria to be considered in future, and to come up with much more reasonable solutions.

In conclusion, I would say that figures sometimes speak louder than words. Let us look at the geographical size of the existing constituencies: Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine would go from 8,155 to 11,375 square kilometres; Gaspé would go from 12,268 to 17,783 square kilometres and would become part of the new Gaspé-Matane constituency; Matapédia-Matane would disappear; Rimouski-Témiscouata would go from 6,367 to 8,564 square kilometres. In the case of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, or Témiscouata, it would go from 6,367 to 8,564 square kilometres. Those are truly huge areas, which it would be almost impossible to represent adequately.

The Bloc Quebecois is pledged to protecting Quebec's interests. For us, that means promoting sovereignty, but we are also representing a population which will have to make a decision regarding its constitutional future. We certainly do not want to abdicate our responsibilities by saying that, according to our scenario, there will not be another federal election. We want to be totally honest and ensure that, regardless of their decision, those whom we represent will enjoy the best possible conditions, whether it is within the Canadian federation if they so choose, or in a different structure.

In conclusion, it is important to support this bill, especially considering the savings involved, since the amendment proposed by the Reform Party would result in hearings being held and in a postponement of the debate. We would end up wasting money on a commission with no specific criteria, and we would still have to look at the whole issue later on. Let us be clear with the public. They just voted in an election, they can wait a little for electoral reform to be completed. It may be that the definitions of RCMs were taken into account in establishing the criteria and that is interesting. However, as regards the rest of this process, let us give ourselves some more time. That way, if we have to use that electoral map again, Canadians will be ensured of the best possible representation.

[Via Rail, March 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, how will the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec be able to sanction cuts of this magnitude which will hinder regional economic development in Quebec by severing an essential link between the regions and Montreal?

[Via Rail, March 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as Minister responsible for regional development in Quebec.

This morning, we learned that as part of its rationalization plan, VIA Rail is planning to cancel service on the Montreal-Gaspé and Montreal-Chicoutimi runs and to severely curtail service between Montreal and Abitibi. In other words, after denouncing the cuts to VIA Rail when they were in opposition, the Liberals are maintaining the policy of the Conservatives and abandoning rail passenger service.

Does this mean that once again, VIA Rail will be streamlining its operations at the expense of Eastern Canada, and in particular, of Quebec which will experience far more drastic rail service cuts than Western Canada?

[Supply, March 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if having a vision means that we are looking for the economic development of Quebec and Canada in an adequate and coordinated way, whether federalist or else, I am saying that when Quebec is sovereign, there will still be transportation needs to and from Canada, the United States, Mexico, South America, Europe, every part of the world. Since we will always need tools, we might as well have the best.

In 1867, the Canada compromise was based on the east-west road. Why not redefine the territories, the jurisdictions and say that Quebec is a country and Canada is another one, and that the high-speed train could serve as one of the main communication links between those two countries?

[Supply, March 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be appropriate to repeat my position on infrastructures to make sure it is well understood.

To provide this country with adequate infrastructures is fine and is something we need. However, the present Canadian system calls for too much manoeuvering between the three levels of government-federal, provincial and local governments-which have an input in decisions that, in my opinion, should be taken at local level only. Without laying on the table that the one solution is sovereignty, it is clear that the centralized decision-making process is a problem in Canada, one which we have tried to bypass in many ways. In terms of regional development, departments were established in order to be able to deal directly with clients because the federal bureaucracy could not reach those regions.

Therefore, there is a structural problem. And the federalists should have a vision about what they can do to be more efficient and effective and stop developing tools aimed at making governments more visible.