Debates of Sept. 26th, 1995

Employment

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it appears from a presentation made to the program review committee on the human resources investment fund by the Minister of Human Resources Development that the government strategy is to prepare Canadians for the transition to a low wage economy.

The government is now talking about making targeted earnings supplements of a few thousand dollars for a year or so to encourage or coerce, as the case may be, unemployed high wage earners into accepting lower paid jobs.

The Liberals say they want to help workers adjust financially and psychologically to the new situation. What the Liberals are really saying to a lot of Canadians is: "Welcome to the post-NAFTA low wage economy where your children, no matter how much education they receive, should not expect to have the same standard of living as you".

Canadian wages are being driven to the bottom as part of the multinational corporate agenda which the Liberals are capitulating to at the same time as they attack the social wage of these same Canadians. This is not what the Liberals promised in 1993. They lied about free trade and now they are preparing Canadians to adjust to the way free trade-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

It is always better for us to be prudent in the language we use. In this context the word "lied" was not directed at any one member. I hope this term will not be used in the House.

The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester.

Canadian Unity

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to share a message of Canadian unity from a constituent of my riding, Mr. David Austin St-Amour.

Austin Saint-Amour is a singer-songwriter as well as a pilot in his own helicopter business. Combining his talents, he conveys the message of Canadian unity in a song and video entitled " Envolons-nous ensemble-Let's keep flying together ''.

Mr. Austin St-Amour combines Canada's beautiful scenery with a simple message through a song of pride and love for our country to create a powerful message of Canadian unity.

Like him, let us be proud to show our love for our country. Long live our united Canada.

Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste Of Sherbrooke

[Denis Paradis, Liberal, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Saturday night in Orford, in the beautiful riding of Brome-Missisquoi, where in a by-election held almost nine months ago voters said No to separation, the Governor General of Canada, the Hon. Roméo LeBlanc, became an honourary member of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste of the Diocese of Sherbrooke.

In fact, as the Director General of the Société, Marcel Bureau, told me, "Our Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste is federalist. The pride we have always felt as Quebecers never prevented us from being deeply attached to Canada".

Members of the Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste of Sherbrooke are proud to be both Canadians and Quebecers. Mr. Bureau, on behalf of all Canadians represented in this House, I take my hat off to you.

French Language

[Bernard Patry, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, most major daily newspapers in Quebec feature advertisements bought and paid for by the Quebec sovereignty council about the future of the French language after the referendum.

As could be expected, the sovereignty council predicts a very dark future for the French language should the No side win, but wonderful days ahead should the Yes side win.

Last week, the BQ member for Rimouski-Témiscouata dispensed the same medicine to francophones outside Quebec, and I quote: "You should realize that a No vote in Quebec would spell the end of French Canada both within and outside Quebec". The French language is alive and well within Canada and will remain so after October 30, because Quebecers will say No to those who have nothing to offer but fear and threats.

Old Age Pensions

[Paul Mercier, Bloc, Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC]

Mr. Speaker, "You have your pensions and you will keep them". That comment was made yesterday to a group of seniors by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Should these people rest assured following that statement? No, Mr. Speaker, because the minister did not dare tell them the whole truth concerning old age pensions. The minister did not mention that the last budget contains this statement, and I

quote: "Later this year, a paper on the changes required in the public pension system will be released".

Who can deny that the government intends to bring in changes? Moreover, the minister refused to tell these seniors whether the amount of old age pensions and the eligibility levels would be maintained. Misinformation and manipulation, this is what the minister's statement is all about. Seniors want to know the truth. They want to know before the referendum what Ottawa has in store for them.

Quebec Referendum

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, a no vote does not mean status quo. A no vote means that Quebec will co-operate with all the other provinces to give a better federation to Canadians from every region.

Just like a good chess player plans his moves, we urge Quebecers to look at their situation before the referendum and to give serious thought to what will happen after they have voted no.

We give Quebecers the best possible reason to vote no, that is a combination of all the benefits of Canadian unity, along with a mandate to reduce the federal government's powers. We believe that these powers should rest more closely with Canadians and that Ottawa must stop monopolizing them.

Again, Mr. Speaker, a no vote does not mean the status quo.

Referendum Campaign

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, Bloc members are resorting to the scaremongering tactics of Quebec's separatists.

Indeed, we learned that the Bloc member for La Prairie began using such tactics on the elderly as early as last March.

In an interview with the weekly Le Reflet régional , the Bloc member said: ``It is not Quebec's sovereignty which threatens the income of seniors; the danger for old age pensions comes from the federal government. Such is the price to be paid if we vote no at the next referendum''.

These comments by a member of Parliament are both irresponsible and shameful. They also show the weakness of the separatists' arguments. Stop using such silly scaremongering tactics. Quebecers are not interested in separating and they will vote no on October 30.

Unemployment Insurance

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Human Resources Development tried to play down the existence and importance of a document from his office dealing with his proposals for unemployment insurance reform.

This morning, the official opposition released a letter from the Canadian Labour Congress which shows that Canada's labour unions are taking very seriously the threat to the unemployment insurance system represented by the minister's reform. The CLC sent its members an analysis of the devastating repercussions of the new cuts in unemployment insurance being prepared by the minister.

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Instead of putting his tape on replay, would he admit that the new cuts his government has decided to postpone after the referendum will have the effect of denying two out of every three unemployed workers access to unemployment insurance?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition is not true. We do not intend to do as he claims.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister and the government are playing down the apprehensions and concerns we are seeing in labour circles across Canada, not just in Quebec. This time, the alarm was sounded by the Canadian Labour Congress which represents all unions in Canada.

I want to ask him whether he would confirm an analysis by the CLC which says that the new cuts in unemployment insurance will come down hard on seasonal and part time workers who will have to work twice as many hours for twice as many weeks to be eligible for reduced benefits. Does the government want to crush them as well?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, as I said to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, we have had a chance to discuss this for months. A green paper on the subject was tabled a year ago. We have consulted with the committees of the House of Commons, the public, the Canadian Labour Congress and many other institutions. Representations are being made, and ultimately we will have a bill that will be tabled in Parliament. As in the case of every other bill, there will probably be amendments, and these will be either supported or rejected by hon. members. And we will know the result at that time.

What we are trying to do? We are trying to make sure that the reforms we need in Canada will give workers access to jobs. Everyone wants us to make changes in the unemployment insurance system. We clearly identified these in the budget, we have been discussing them for a year and a half here in the House, and in time reforms will be introduced. The minister is still working on his bill, and in November or December the Leader of the Opposition, provided he is still in the House, will have an opportunity to raise any questions he wants and make any appropriate suggestions, and the government will consider these before the final vote on the bill.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, whether or not the Leader of the Opposition will still be in the House is not up to him.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Second, the reason we have these never ending debates on unemployment insurance reform is that the government does not have the courage to table its reform proposals, and people are concerned because of these documents from the minister's office-and he did not deny that; he admitted it was true-announcing horrendous cuts.

Would the Prime Minister have the courage to tell us today that he will table the reform before the Quebec referendum?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we will table what should be tabled in Parliament when the reform is ready. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to scare everyone. Unemployment insurance reform will apply to all Canadians, not just to Quebecers.

Now the opposition is trying to scare people. This morning they said senior citizens were in trouble. They are trying to scare Quebecers on the language issue. The opposition's scaremongering continues. We are getting one scare a day. We have 34 days left, so we can expect 34 more during that time.

I simply want to say that we will keep doing what we have decided to do, which is to act responsibly as the government of this country, provide for good government, put the country on a sound financial footing and create jobs to restore the dignity of workers in our society. It is by providing good government for the people of Quebec that we will make them very happy to vote for Canada on October 30, by voting No to separation.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the Prime Minister talk of a campaign of terror is a bit like hearing the bogey man accusing someone else of being scary, or the pot calling the kettle black.

[An hon. member]

Something he knows all about.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

To the man who has made the threats of the bogey man his stock in trade, the Canadian Labour Congress analysis-not the analysis by the Bloc, although it does reach the same conclusions-says that "the main tools are training vouchers, training loans, wage subsidies, income supplements and daycare vouchers. These new approaches to program delivery will enable the federal government to bypass the provinces and deal with individuals directly".

My question is for the Prime Minister. Does he acknowledge that the Canadian Labour Congress analysis confirms his government's intentions, the federal government's intentions, to interfere even more in the areas over which the government of Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction, in total disregard of the consensus that exists throughout Quebec?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, we have to begin by asking the hon. member to stop for a moment and ask himself about what he has been saying. He has taken a piece of paper prepared by the Canadian Labour Congress speculating on what it thinks might be some time in the future the proposals of the federal government and now declares that to be the reform.

I deny totally the kind of conclusions the Canadian Labour Congress has put forward because frankly it does not know what it is talking about.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it will be noted that the Minister has referred to the analysis of a document originating with his office which he refuses to table before this House. He ought perhaps to remember that. This report also states that the objectives of the human resources development fund are fairly clear, namely to establish a program structure and a system of implementation which eliminate any need for provincial consent or participation.

Will he acknowledge that, if he is deliberately putting off tabling his human resources reform, his unemployment insurance reform, the reason is that it comes down so terribly hard upon the unemployed, because it invades as never before the areas over which the government of Quebec has jurisdiction, and because this would be the price Quebecers would have to pay for a no in the referendum, if ever they should vote no and allow the minister to do as he pleases?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, in listening to the hon. member, there must be

a new slogan for the Bloc Quebecois which is, separation by words of desperation.

The reality is that once again the hon. member is making a fundamental fallacy. He is taking conclusions from the Canadian Labour Congress. It may be that the Canadian Labour Congress wants to deny co-operation with the provinces. It may be that the Canadian Labour Congress wants to cut these kinds of programs. It may be its analysis that this is what should be done with the UI system but it is not ours.

We have worked very hard over this past year. We have met consistently with the provinces and local communities. The whole thrust of the reform is to decentralize, to get real programs at the local level so people can tailor and design employment programs to fit the needs of those communities. That is what we are trying to do. That is the real meaning. It is not to turn power over to other bureaucracies but to give the power back to the people to choose how they want to get back to work.

The Environment

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for two years the provinces and Ottawa through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment have been discussing ways to harmonize environmental management in Canada. These talks have been progressing toward a framework agreement to rationalize responsibilities and eliminate costly overlap and duplication. But recently the federal Minister of the Environment pulled the plug on this process, refusing to proceed on an agreement that would have been a significant victory for the environment and for federal-provincial relations.

Will the Minister of the Environment table the draft environmental management framework agreement negotiated with the provinces and let the House and the people of Canada decide whether or not it should proceed?