Réal Ménard

[Supply, March 22nd, 1994]

No, that is not necessary.

[Supply, March 22nd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East for her always very heartfelt, very moderate remarks, and I would like to make two or three comments that will take the form of questions. As you can appreciate, today's opposition motion does not mean in any way that we believe jobs can be created by waving a magic wand. It simply says that this government does not offer us hope for the future, an overall vision regarding job creation. On a more fundamental level, beyond this lack of vision, we see structural obstacles in the presence of two governments that have clearly not found a balance in terms of job creation.

For us, the best government is not the one that intervenes the least. The best thing that could happen to Quebecers is to have one less government. So much for the general framework.

In the meantime, since we must continue to work within that system, I would like to ask the hon. member for Vancouver East this: Does she agree with me that, at the national level, the sectors that will create jobs, where workers will be needed in coming years, surprisingly enough and contrary to conventional wisdom, are often sectors with strong community involvement? I am thinking in particular of the whole issue of support services for seniors. The hon. member knows that the number of senior citizens will double in Quebec and Canada. That is something we have in common.

As an eminent economist from the Université du Québec à Montréal, Ruth Rose, pointed out, there is also the child-care sector. We live in a society where people work split shifts. It is not like in the old days when people got up at eight o'clock in the morning and worked until five in the afternoon before going home. People now work irregular hours and governments will have to invest very heavily in a national network of child-care centres.

In closing, I will talk about the recreation sector, especially for handicapped people. We are fortunate to have in this House a member such as the hon. member for Mercier, whose keen intelligence and talent is well known and who has always said, like most members of the Bloc Quebecois believe, that economic growth and job development must go hand in hand with community network development.

I therefore ask the hon. member if she believes we can, within her government's job proposal, emphasize community networks. Can we rely on her dynamism and her sense of involvement; will she become her government's social conscience if it ever decides to cut job-creation programs?

[Human Rights, March 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of International Trade have told us: "Human rights are no longer tied to trade" and business sense.

The Liberals had promised a more "we'll go it alone" Canadian foreign policy, one more in line with Lester B. Pearson's vision. Let the naïve think again! The Liberal government is sending the way of the trash heap a long-standing tradition of defending human rights, reducing Canada to the condition of petty trading nation without any vision, or heart or soul.

One Liberal minister after another will visit China over the next few months, but the Canadian ministers will not bring up the legitimate concerns of Quebecers and Canadians about human rights issues.

I hope that Canada will come round. There is nothing worse than a nation losing its soul.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to exchange comments with the parliamentary secretary, but I think I ought to tell him, with respect, that his speech contained two contradictions. I want to point out that his impassioned defence of small business has always been well received by my party. I know that some of my colleagues here today are working very hard with him in committee.

He is probably aware that Montreal is the poorest city in Canada; the Montreal area has the largest number of poor families and poor people in this country. In East Montreal, we had a program called the PRIEM program, which was set up five years ago. All parties involved in this program asked the government to extend it. The program gave small businesses access to capital to update their facilities, and it created about 30 per cent of the new jobs in East Montreal.

If the minister and his government had been serious about using small business as part of their economic recovery strategy, it seems to me Montreal would have received a favourable answer to its request for an extension to this program. It did not, however. We and other members had a meeting with the Minister of Finance. We made certain representations, as did the community of Montreal, but unfortunately, the program will not be extended. That was the first contradiction I wanted to point out, and I would appreciate it if the minister would comment.

I would also like to hear his comments on a second issue, the technology question. On several occasions the minister has said in the House, with considerable eloquence, that his party was prepared to go all the way with technology and that this was a major priority. Unfortunately this was not reflected in the budget, and the scientific community got even less than it expected. There is not much in the budget that would point to a genuine national strategy on technology.

I wish he would offer some thoughts on the information highway. All parties concerned agree that if we are to have a national information highway some day, government funding will be needed. It is not true that only private capital is needed.

However, we can find no indication in this budget that the government will help implement this information highway.

[Human Rights, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In his annual report, the Commissioner of Human Rights reveals that the federal government goes against several of its own legislative provisions by allowing Revenue Canada to deny homosexual couples access to various fringe benefits given to heterosexual couples.

Does the Minister of Justice intend to propose amendments to applicable Canadian legislation in order to put an end to this type of discrimination against homosexual couples?

[Information Highway, March 11th, 1994]

Then I guess I jumped the gun with my question, Mr. Speaker. How does the minister intend to involve the provinces, particularly Quebec, the cradle of la Francophonie, in the charting of the

information highway? I would appreciate an answer to this question today.

[Information Highway, March 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on February 4 last, I asked the Minister of Industry to tell us what his specific plans were with respect to the information highway. At the time, the minister answered rather vaguely that he was planning to set up an advisory council. I was concerned by this because we already had the Ostry report which provided details about the information highway to the government.

Can the minister now inform the House of the mandate, composition and work schedule of this council?

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I felt I had to put a question to the previous speaker, who is a fellow member of the National Defence Committee, because I share his concerns.

I would appreciate his views on the following. If you asked me the difference between the economies of the 21st century and the economies with which the hon. member probably grew up, considering the slight chronological gap between us, I would say that a few years ago, it was possible for countries to attract investment, which meant that people would invest $200,000, $200 million or $50,000 in a region, and this would create jobs.

Today, we have the kind of economies where that is not the case. Take, for instance, the hon. member's riding, where companies like Alcan can invest 50 or 100 million without creating a single job. In today's economic context, massive investments do not help create jobs. I think there is a fundamental difference between the economies of the 1960s and 1970s, and what will happen between now and the end of this century.

The difference between government members and the opposition is that, try as we may, we find it hard to accept that. Hon. members on all sides of the House agree that we must reduce the deficit. Where we disagree is on how to get Canadians back to work. This is crucial.

The infrastructure program has its merits, although we should not forget that Prime Minister Bennett proposed more or less the same program in the thirties during the Depression, when for the first time, the government was asked to intervene on a large scale in public works.

All the analysts who looked at this proposal agree that at best it would create between 40,000 and 45,000 jobs, which makes this a very modest and conservative program.

Since I know this is a very real concern, and I realize the hon. member represents a riding where there is a lot of unemployment, I would like to ask him whether he sees any reasons to be optimistic and whether he could share these with me and perhaps make me share his optimism, since I have an open mind. What reasons do we have to believe that with this kind of budget, Canadians will be able to get back into the labour market?

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief comment because I liked the speech of the hon. member very much. First, she sounded very sincere, and second, she is the first member of Maltese descent. I congratulate her.

Despite the ring of truth and sincerity in her speech, as well as her enthusiasm-something all new parliamentarians have in common-she will certainly agree with me that Canada is a country in which Quebec will democratically choose to stay or will decide to leave. The guarantee we must have from that side of the House or the other side is that as democrats-and there can be only one type, no doubt-the result of the referendum and the choice of Quebec will be respected.

Personally, I can tell you that should Quebec decide to remain within the Canadian federation I would respect that decision, but I am committed to working democratically for the other choice.

I thank the hon. member for her speech, which was really from the heart.

[Canada Labour Code, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is a true meeting of the minds, since I have made arrangements to table a Private Member's bill. In fact, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to support it, since she made the suggestion herself. In fact, I see this as a sign that the government is willing to support this initiative.

I would also like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister for assurances that when the next budget is brought down on Tuesday, appropriate action will be taken to stop this discrimination.