Debates of Sept. 28th, 1995

Unemployment Insurance Reform

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development is once again trying to hide from seasonal workers the impact of his UI reform. Not only will many workers no longer qualify, but the minister intends to take nearly 20 percent off their UI cheques.

We must realize that Quebec regions will be hard hit by this reform. The federal government is setting out to treat seasonal workers like second-class workers, beer drinkers, as the Prime Minister once said.

Is this Ottawa's answer to forestry workers' cry for help? The minister cannot keep hiding his reform. If he thinks it is a good reform, he should table it before the referendum is held.

Bill C-351

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want gun laws that are cost effective, reduce violent crime and save lives.

This morning as part of the Canadian agenda, the people's agenda, I introduced the firearms law sunset act. If passed, this bill would guarantee that only those gun laws that were successful and cost effective at improving public safety and reducing violent crime involving firearms would remain on the books.

The justice minister, following in the steps of his defeated predecessor, has been unable to produce a shred of evidence to show that a national firearms registry is necessary or will improve public safety. If the Liberals think it will they should support my bill. For anyone to argue against this type of sunset provision, they

would have to argue that they support gun controls even if they do not work and no matter how much the controls cost.

No one is saying that gun control is unnecessary, only that police time and resources should be spent on measures that get the best bang for the buck. This bill does exactly that.

Division Of The Federal Debt

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Leader of the Official Opposition displayed true political demagoguery in this House. The Bloc Quebecois leader clearly suggested that an independent Quebec might not fulfill its commitment to assume part of the national debt if the purported negotiations on an economic union are not to his liking.

That totally irresponsible statement made by the separatist leader can only generate more fear on financial markets, and it could have a devastating effect on the credit ratings and interest rates that we will be faced with, both in Quebec and in Canada. Are we to understand from the opposition leader's comments that an independent Quebec will not fulfill its financial commitments toward foreign countries and investors? Is that the foolish adventure that you are proposing to Quebecers, Mr. Bouchard?

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, you must always address the Chair and avoid using names. I ask the hon. member to be careful.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was referring to Mr. Parizeau.

Old Age Pensions

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

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec separatist spokespersons no longer know what stories to make up to scare people. Since they are incapable of showing the benefits of their separation project, they now try to make a fuss over non-existent issues. The most recent such attempt was made by the PQ environment minister, who said yesterday that, following a no vote, old age pensions would take a beating.

Such blackmail and scaremongering tactics have no place, given the importance of the decision that Quebecers have to make. Separatists must demonstrate the advantages, if any, of their option and stop raising the spectre of cuts in old age pensions. Quebec seniors are not stupid; they can very well decide for themselves which structure will afford them better protection: an independent Quebec or a united Canada.

House Of Commons

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in January 1993 the Liberals wrote a document while in opposition entitled "Reviving Parliamentary Democracy: The Liberal plan for House of Commons reform". Two of the authors were the minister of public works and the present whip.

Liberals should listen. Mr. Speaker, this is what they said about your position: "In order to enhance the independence of the Chair and in an effort to reduce the level of partisanship, when the Speaker is from the government party, two of the junior chair officers should be from the opposition so that the four presiding officer positions are shared equally between the government and the opposition".

The current deputy and assistant Speakers are Liberals. The partisan nature of their appointments is in contradiction to Liberal promises. It makes me wonder: Is the government really interested in the broad Canadian agenda of parliamentary reform? I do not think so. The proof is in the pudding. They are intent on mouthing promises they have no intention of keeping.

Social Program Reform

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, when pressed with questions yesterday about the dreaded federal reforms in unemployment insurance and old age pensions, the leader of the No side, Daniel Johnson, did not answer, saying this was up to the federal government. Since Mr. Johnson has refused to take any responsibility for the future of social programs, including those that apply to Quebec, I will direct my questions to the Prime Minister.

Will the Prime Minister admit that the best way to respond to the concerns of the unemployed and the elderly would be to table his social program reform now, so that Quebecers will know what to expect after a No to the referendum question?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I said early this week, and the Minister of Human Resources Development fielded questions on the subject several times, that we are working on the unemployment insurance reform. The process started some time ago. A green paper was tabled, and there were consultations with members. As soon as the bill is ready, we

will table it in the House of Commons, there will be a debate and amendments will be proposed by all parties, including the opposition's party.

There is a debate going on now, and I want to repeat that the reform will apply to all Canadians. It will apply not only to Quebecers but to all Canadians. We want to make sure that the unemployment insurance program and social reform will focus on job creation and on giving Canadian and Quebec workers the dignity of work, the dignity they desire.

As for old age pensions, this is our responsibility. As everyone knows, the federal government has an obligation to meet with the provincial governments every five years to review what is referred to in English as the CPP with the nine other provinces. Although the Government of Quebec is fully autonomous in this area because the Quebec pension plan is strictly under its jurisdiction, it is party to the discussions because it does not want to undo the harmonization that exists in Canada.

This meeting will take place in a few weeks, and the finance minister will be there. In any case, we have absolutely no intention of compromising the security of senior citizens who depend on government pensions. That is not our purpose. The point is that we must act responsibly and face up to our responsibilities. The point is not to have one policy before the referendum and another one afterwards, as seems to be the case with the Parti Quebecois in Quebec City.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the federal social program reform is reminiscent of Penelope and her weaving. Every night Penelope, who was playing for time, would unravel what she had woven during the day. In the case of the federal government, every night it ushers its officials into the office of the Minister of Human Resources Development to undo what was written the day before, to make sure the reform is not ready before the referendum.

According to various leaks and to information reported just this morning in the Globe and Mail , the social program reform is ready but the government has decided to postpone its release.

My question to the Prime Minister is: When will he put an end to the uncertainty and apprehension of the unemployed and immediately release this reform which is locked away in the vaults of the Minister of Human Resources Development, so that Quebecers can make an informed decision on the kind of society they want on October 30?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, we are acting very responsibly, and the legislation is not ready yet because the appropriate decisions have not been made. As soon as these decisions have been made by cabinet, the legislation will be drafted and tabled in this House. If the legislation is ready before the referendum, it will be tabled before the referendum.

We have discussed these matters and obtained the input of a great many people on this reform. We want to do a good job, and we will ensure that Quebecers are treated exactly the same as everybody else. This has no connection with the referendum. It is because we want to act responsibly.

I want to take this opportunity to ask the Leader of the Opposition if he would care to clear the air about what he said yesterday. He probably said more than he intended, because at this stage, the Leader of the Opposition cannot afford to give foreign markets the impression that some provinces or governments in Canada would not do what any country would have to do, which is pay its debts as agreed in contracts with investors.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister wants to reassure foreign markets, he should tell them he will behave reasonably, will respect Quebec's democratic Yes vote and will negotiate. Investors tend to shy away from lending money to undemocratic governments.

This does not fool anyone. The Prime Minister wants to postpone the tabling of this reform, because he has every reason to fear the devastating scope of the cuts he is about to make. Does he not realize that by taking his cue from the simplistic and heartless solutions proposed by Mike Harris, he is preparing the ground for a fractured and divided society in Canada and Quebec, of which we saw a sample last night at Queen's Park, unfortunately?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, speaking of a democratic society, when we have a leader of the opposition in a democracy, sitting in Parliament and proposing the division and break up of the country in which he lives, this has to be a record for democracy anywhere in the world.

In a democracy, people who propose separation should have the courage to say they are separatists, not just to the Americans but to the people in that province, so they will understand. In a democracy, they should have the honesty to say clearly what they want to achieve with their objective, which is separation, but the Leader of the Opposition is afraid to tell Quebecers the truth as he should, in a democracy: that he is a separatist and wants to leave Canada.

But Quebecers will understand, and on October 30 they will vote to stay in Canada. I am sure they will, because they know the opposition does not have the courage to do as it says.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister announcing that he would not be prepared to respect Quebec's electoral democracy? The leader of the official opposition has been duly elected, and a goodly number of the

members here have been elected by more than half of their fellow citizens, unlike many other people.

It can be seen from this morning's Globe and Mail that the minister prefers to hand out scoops on his unemployment insurance reform to the major dailies rather than to table the reform so it can be judged in its entirety by the population of Quebec.

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development admit that the leak referred to by the Globe and Mail proves beyond a doubt that his plan is not only to come down hard on the unemployed but also to go over the heads of the provinces, thumbing his nose at the Quebec consensus?

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it quite strange that the hon. member would comment on the fact that we are divulging things.

It was only a day or so ago that her leader and other members were waving leaked documents in brown envelopes. All of a sudden they are totally discounting those and asking: "What is the real truth?" Two days ago the leader of the opposition was saying: "I have the truth here". Now the hon. member for Mercier is saying: "No, that was not the truth".

The fact of the matter is Bloc Quebecois members do not know what the truth is any more because everything they do is geared to the agenda of separatism. If they want to have a serious debate about social reform they should be putting their positions and suggestions forward.

The problem is they are distracting Parliament from the real work of helping people to get jobs, of helping people to get security, and of helping people to see their future. As a result Parliament cannot do the work it should be doing because the hon. member is totally distracting and knocking people off their feet.

That is why I keep saying to the hon. member "simply say you are going to vote no" so we can get down to the business of the House.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because there have been trial runs of Canadian federalism, over and over again, that Quebec premiers from Jean Lesage up to Bourassa have been trying over and over again to gain control over occupational training. Just that. And the reason we are sovereignists is that we have seen federalism's inability to reform. For the good of the common people.

Does the minister acknowledge that, in this plan which we have all read, he is not only cutting social transfers but also dumping onto the provinces the burden of the long term unemployed, without any financial compensation for that burden, while at the same time retaining control over the unemployment insurance fund and its surplus in order to finance new federal initiatives?

[The Speaker]

I would ask my colleagues to shorten the questions a bit. They are quite long.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me first comment on the remarks of the hon. member about the need to work with the provinces.

On October 5, I wrote to the new employment minister in Quebec, Madam Harel, offering to sit down and negotiate a devolution or decentralization of labour market programs. The answer was no.

I was still interested so I tried again. I wrote on October 27, 1994 to the same minister and said: "Let's get together and study the problem of duplication and overlap. We will sort of join to do the program". The answer again was no. The question of co-operation was not a problem on our side. It was from that minister of employment.

In all good faith I kept trying and as a result last summer we had some success. We negotiated an agreement to help jointly fund a major income supplement program in Quebec. We were able to arrive at an agreement to do a joint program for apprenticeship training in auto mechanics for young people. We have also arrived at a preretirement program.

It shows that I will keep trying as long as they will too.

Quebec Referendum

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, some dissatisfied Quebecers are saying that they are tempted to vote yes in the Quebec referendum, not just because they want to separate from Canada but because they want to separate from an overcentralized federal government. They fear and resent the centralizing tendencies of the federal government-

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

They fear and resent the centralizing tendencies of a federal administration and of key ministers in that administration, and one of the worst offenders is the Minister of the Environment.

Recently she walked away from a groundbreaking agreement with the provinces on environmental management because somehow it conflicted with her view of centralized environmental management.

Will the environment minister get back to the negotiating table, conclude the environmental management agreement with the provinces, and demonstrate that decentralized federalism works better than centralized federalism?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very sad day in the House of Commons when the leader of the third party gets his best applause from the separatists with whom he is working.

Also I welcome the member's newfound interest in the environment. We have been sitting here now for almost two years and I got my first question from him on the issue this week.

When it comes to agreements, in the last 23 months we have signed 12 major agreements which I would like to read into the record. They are administrative agreements with the province of Alberta. These are equivalency agreements which the province of Alberta signed on June 1, 1994. There is the Canadian intergovernmental agreement on the NAFTA signed on August 15, 1995. There is the administrative agreement on pulp and paper with British Columbia-

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary Southwest.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's contempt for this line of questioning is the same contempt she shows for the provinces.

The minister has unilaterally banned the use of lead shot. She is unilaterally banning the use of MMT and benzene as fuel additives. The minister is setting standards for greenhouse gas emissions without real consultation. The minister stopped all the harmonization talks and scuttled progress on transferring control of the inland fisheries to the provinces. The concerns of the provinces are met not with understanding but with the minister's reverse charm and recycled rat pack tactics.

Why does the minister stubbornly cling to the centralizing prejudices and policies of the seventies when decentralization is the watchword of the 1990s?