Réal Ménard

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Secretary of State for his speech. He is aware of my concern about the situation in Montreal. I am very confident speaking about these issues since I am a Montrealer, born and bred in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. I have always lived there and cannot imagine living anywhere else. However, I cannot say I share the optimism of the Secretary of State.

There is something we should all remember. I am sure the Secretary of State is aware that a few days ago, the mayor of Montreal, who is not a Bloc member and has no sovereignist leanings, appeared before the committee on taxation. In his brief, and I am sure the Secretary of State had occasion to read it, the mayor reminded us of an undisputable fact, which led the opposition to move the motion before the House on this opposition day. He reminded us that as a result of the government's neglect, and I would challenge anyone on the government benches to prove otherwise, today Montreal is the poverty capital of Canada.

I may recall a quote from a report by a federal agency. In his brief, the mayor of Montreal said: "A recent report by the Canadian-and I insist on the word Canadian-Council on Social Development shows that in Montreal, the poverty rate is at 22 per cent, the highest of any Canadian city. According to the report, in Montreal one child out of five lives in poverty". I am not the kind of political demagogue who believes that poverty is the individual's fault. That is not what we are discussing today.

Will the Secretary of State admit that a number of measures deliberately introduced by his government have helped to make Montreal a city where poverty is widespread? I am referring to the unemployment insurance, now employment insurance reform. In Quebec, both the Fortin report and the Bouchard report indicated there was a connection between the reform and the fact that people were going on welfare. Will the Secretary of State rise in the House to tell us that the government admits that this kind of measure is helping to pauperize Montreal?

Finally, I would like to quote from the red book, which has now become the black book for Montreal, in which the government made three promises. I would like to hear what the Secretary of State has to say on the subject. It said that the government would promote the use of community groups and partnerships to revitalize local economies. Would the Secretary of State agree that the proposed reform in which he was very much involved has helped to pauperize Montreal?

The red book also referred to revitalizing the housing industry through a renovation program that would be of particular benefit to old neighbourhoods. That is all very well, but today, the federal government is not putting a cent into subsidized housing. It has withdrawn completely. Will the Secretary of State work actively in

his caucus on obtaining compensation for Montreal? That is my question, and I ask it as a friend.

[Montreal's Economy, October 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the referendum is an issue they raise when they have nothing else to talk about. I have a specific proposal for the Prime Minister.

Why does the Prime Minister not agree to making federal procurement in Quebec proportionate to the size of its population? For Montreal alone, this would represent a $500 million increase, which, in turn, would create 10,000 new jobs in the greater Montreal area. Why did the Prime Minister not make this commitment yesterday? Is the Prime Minister serious about Montreal?

[Montreal's Economy, October 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, and I do hope he will answer himself.

The Prime Minister was in Montreal yesterday, where he shed crocodile tears over the sad state of the Montreal economy. Yet, the federal government's procurement policy clearly puts Quebec at a disadvantage. The value of federal goods and services not purchased in Quebec amounts to amounts to $1.2 billion, which represents a loss of $600 million to $700 million for the Montreal area, I repeat a loss of $600 million to $700 million.

Instead of crying over Montreal's economy, will the Prime Minister act positively and constructively, and restore fairness in federal procurement, which would create thousands of jobs in the greater Montreal area? Will the Prime Minister take action?

[Job Creation For Young People, October 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, when will the minister have some concrete announcements for young people, and when will young people be able to report to their local employment centres to get the practical help they need to re-enter the labour market? That is my question.

[Job Creation For Young People, October 11th, 1996]

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

Youth unemployment has reached unacceptable levels. The statistics confirmed once again this morning that young people are among those most severely affected by job losses. Their official unemployment rate has increased again and is now at 16.6 per cent. More than 400,000 young people are out of work, and we know that out there the situation is actually even worse. However, we know that the Department of Human Resources Development still has $45 million left of the $105 million announced this spring to help develop jobs for youth.

I would appreciate a clear answer to the following question: Can the minister guarantee that the as yet unused amount of $45 million will be spent by the end of the year, in a serious effort to help young people return to the labour market?

[The Fight Against Aids, October 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to pay tribute to the organizers of "Ça marche", an event that took place last Sunday in Montreal and in over 30 towns and cities in Quebec.

This annual event is held to raise funds for the Farah Foundation, which distributes them to dozens of organizations serving people living with AIDS. Over the years, this event has become an ideal opportunity for expressing solidarity with those whose lives have been touched, even if only remotely, by the consequences of this terrible illness.

The march in Montreal this year was an unprecedented success. The organizers estimate the number of participants at 30,000 and the money collected at $582,000, $22,000 more than last year.

This event shows beyond a shadow of a doubt how important the fight against AIDS is to the people of Quebec and of Canada. Research in this field must be a government priority.

In closing, I would like to warmly thank the organizers, the Farah Foundation, the dozens of volunteers who made this event possible and all the community groups that, day after day, work on behalf of those living with AIDS.

[The Aerospace Industry, October 3rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we take note of the fact that the minister will have to set aside $115 million for Quebec.

I have a supplementary. Does the minister know that the English version of his document on the technology partnership program points out that funding will be exclusively for feasibility studies, while this information is lacking in the French version-

[The Aerospace Industry, October 3rd, 1996]

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

As the minister knows, our country's major defence industry companies are concentrated in Quebec. These include Expro, Bell Helicopter, SNC and Oerlikon. It is also a fact that, without government support, up to 10,000 jobs will disappear in this sector over the next five years.

Considering that 56 per cent of the aerospace industry is located in Quebec, and that, for ten years now, Quebec has been receiving $115 million annually under the existing program, will the minister pledge to maintain the same level of funding for Quebec under the technology partnerships program?

[Canada Labour Code, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the Reform Party was unable to speak on the essence of the motion but spoke only on the form of it, as is its detestable habit.

I do not claim-and I want my Reform colleagues to be clear on this-that all RCMP workers supported this motion. What I say to my Reform friend, and I challenge him to prove me wrong on this, is that there is a group of some 3,000 people who want a different representation system.

One would have to be extremely obtuse and dull-witted to claim, as does the Reform member, that the people who want unionization and collective bargaining right do not represent anyone. Reform members should be a little more open and better informed. There is something structural there that has to do with their capacity for greater generosity. I have no illusion that all this will change.

But essentially, I think we have the right as parliamentarians to speak up in this House without being falsely accused and say there is a labour relations problem, that there may be a number of solutions to this problem and that one of them might be the right to unionize without the right to strike.

This must be very clear. None of the workers we are talking about here tonight has asked for the right to strike. These workers are well aware of the fact that, considering the nature of their functions, it would not be in the best interest of Canadians that they have the right to strike. What must be recognized is that peace in the work place will be achieved with a negotiated and debated document, approved by everyone and called a collective agreement.

What is clear also is that the workers have the right to associate in a system other than the one that prevails. I am annoyed that this debate has given the Reform members the opportunity to make such detestable accusations.

[Canada Labour Code, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was courteous in this debate and I never questioned anybody's intentions. I will not permit my colleague to question the quality of my research and my work, and I ask him to apologize for the unkind remarks he made about me.