Lucien Bouchard

[Social Program Reform, October 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we know the government deliberately put off tabling its reform of social programs until after the referendum in order to keep the bad news awaiting the unemployed from them until then. There have been a number of leaks of late confirming that the reform has been ready for a number of weeks already. The CSN has even made public a bill setting out exactly how they would cut the unemployment insurance plan.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Now that Quebecers have voted no in the referendum, what is preventing him from unveiling his reform of social programs, under which he is once again to make cuts on the backs of the disadvantaged?

[The Hon. Audrey McLaughlin, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add the voice of the official opposition to that of the government spokesperson in paying all of the honour that is due to Audrey McLaughlin as she moves from the life of an elected representative to the life of a private citizen.

I would like her to tell her that we have all loved and admired her and that we will continue to show her all of the esteem she deserves. When I was on the opposition benches from 1990 to 1993, when the Bloc was not a recognized party, I had the opportunity, since I was in the same corner of the House, to work in close conjunction with Ms. McLaughlin as Leader of the Opposition. I must admit that I learned lessons from her which I try to put into practice daily.

I believe that we must acknowledge the work carried out by this great lady who is leaving the House of Commons for another life, a life in which I know she will be equally productive. We must tell her how much she will be missed. The social awareness she has shown in this House is something that has been building throughout her life. She came to politics from social work. She has worked in the health field, she has worked with children. When she spoke of those causes in the House she knew what she was talking about, and we sensed that in the sincerity of her speeches.

I would also like to remind people that she was the first woman leader of a major federal party. She has blazed a trail for others to follow. We must acknowledge that she has done a good job of doing so, for now another woman will be leading her party.

I do not wish to see her leave the House right away, but I know that the decision she has made to leave the leadership of a great party like the NDP was a very big decision. I hope she will remain extremely active in politics, for the party she has led which is now to be led by Ms. McDonough and in fact has been led by her since the weekend, is a party which represents in English Canada the values to which all of us in the Bloc Quebecois adhere, but which are not exclusive to the Bloc.

We know that social values are very important in English Canada, that English Canada fought long for them. There must therefore be a party in this House at all times to defend those values. I hope that party will be the NDP.

Again, allow me to repeat our regrets that Ms. McLaughlin has stepped down from the leadership of the New Democratic Party, and to wish her from all of us a long and active life. At any rate, we know that she will be following the excellent examples set by Stephen Lewis and Ed Broadbent before her.

[Referendum Campaign, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is simply appalling that a Prime Minister should stoop to distorting comments to such an extraordinary degree. This is intolerable. Everybody knows there is a problem with the birth rate in Quebec and that it concerns all governments. Everyone knows that in Quebec many couples, and we all know people like that, would like to have children but cannot afford to.

So I want to ask him whether he does not realize that we will have to introduce appropriate measures for financial support, measures to make daycare available to everyone, and I want to ask him whether he realizes that by threatening to cut social programs as he has started to do and will continue to do more and more after the No, he ignores the needs and interests of women and married couples?

[Referendum Campaign, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the No side shows how desperate it is when it distorts, the way it just did, the comments I made on Saturday, by claiming they were sexist.

I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he would agree, as I said on Saturday, that the government must provide the right socio-economic conditions so that couples who want children and have none because they cannot afford it, would be able to have them?

I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he would agree that we must create the right socio-economic conditions so that couples who want children can afford to have them? I want to ask him whether he would agree that we must give them that option by creating conditions that will help them develop both their own and their children's potential?

[Referendum Campaign, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister voted for Charlottetown, it was because recognition of Quebec's distinct identity did not mean a thing. That is why he voted in favour of the accord and that is why we are going to vote against it.

I want to ask the Prime Minister how he expects Quebecers to trust him after what he did the day after the No in 1980, when he did a job on Quebec by isolating it and imposing a constitution that Quebec still refuses to sign.

[Referendum Campaign, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, so constitutional change is not important enough to discuss at a time when it happens to be the focus of the debate on the future of Quebec. That is rather strange.

The Prime Minister just referred to Charlottetown. He knows perfectly well that the Canada clause made recognition of Quebec's distinct identity devoid of all substance by subordinating this recognition to the fundamental principle of provincial equality.

I want to ask him: Would he confirm that it is because of the sacrosanct principle of provincial equality, he refuses to recognize Quebec as a distinct society, as he is being asked to do today, alas in vain, by Mr. Johnson who will not learn the lessons of Meech and Charlottetown?

[Referendum Campaign, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in desperation, Daniel Johnson mentioned a commitment made in 1992 by the Liberal Party of Canada to recognize the distinct identity of Quebec, in an attempt to convince himself that the political will for constitutional change exists. However, on September 11 this year, the Prime Minister of Canada told him, and I quote: "Distinct society-we are distinct, no need to put it in the Constitution. When you look at me and hear me speak English, you know I am distinct".

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I want to ask him whether he intends to remind Mr. Johnson that the federal government has no intention of amending the Constitution to recognize the distinct identity of Quebec, as he himself, the Prime Minister of Canada, said on September 11 this year.

[Manpower Training, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the government cannot minimize what is going on. It is an unprecedented assault on all legislative fronts, which is aimed specifically at giving the federal government the means to meddle once and for all throughout an area of Quebec jurisdiction, messing things up further than they already are at the moment.

I would remind the Prime Minister that the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre's denunciation of the federal bill was unanimous and had the support of Ghislain

Dufour, president of the Conseil du patronat and a member of the no camp.

Does the Prime Minister consider the position taken by his federalist ally a mere caprice as well and will he also sweep him away with a wave of his hand?

[Manpower Training, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Prime Minister and his minister that the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre is a non partisan organization, which brings together all stakeholders in Quebec, which knows how to read bills, and which saw in this one a dangerous encroachment upon Quebec's jurisdiction.

I would ask the Prime Minister whether he acknowledges that, with this bill, his government is going against the very broad consensus in Quebec in favour of repatriating financial responsibility for manpower training?

[Manpower Training, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in a unanimous decision, the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, which brings together business and employee representatives, yesterday denounced federal encroachment, in the form of Bill C-96, in the area of manpower training. This public organization is asking the government to stop setting up new parallel structures and to refrain from further intrusion into Quebec jurisdiction.

I ask the Prime Minister if he acknowledges that, with Bill C-96, Ottawa is acquiring the means to meddle further in manpower training and will therefore increase overlap and waste to the detriment of the unemployed and Quebec's jurisdiction?