Benoît Sauvageau

[Points Of Order, February 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, something I consider very serious happened in question period.

The member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, in putting a question to the government House leader, the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, knowingly altered remarks I had made in this House yesterday, remarks I could read back to you in their entirety, if I may, since they were made pursuant to Standing Order 31.

I will then insist that these remarks, in which I am made to say that the region did not deserve to hold the Games of La Francophonie, be withdrawn from Hansard . I also insist on an apology from the two members who interpreted remarks I never made.

Here is the statement that I made yesterday under Standing Order 31:

In 2001 Canada will be hosting the IVth Games of la Francophonie. They will be held in Ottawa, the capital and a unilingual English city.

This is true. These games will be held in Hull and also in Ottawa, which is unilingual.

First, according to Statistics Canada, 91% of the population of the city of Ottawa speak English only—

This is from Statistics Canada. Furthermore, again according to Statistics Canada, less than 10% of the population of the city of Ottawa is francophone.

[Liberal Government, February 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I offer the House a variation on a theme by Jacques Brel:

Insufficient is love As something to share When patronage tales Are afloat in the air

Insufficient is love From the Liberal side When stories of scandals Float in with the tide

Insufficient is love When promises die While taxes like GST Climb to the sky

Insufficient is love When the help you would bring Concerns only bridges Not one other thing

Insufficient is love When Heritage flags Are plastered about The better to brag

Insufficient is love When you turn a deaf ear And gags are the order Our pleas not to hear

But love will create Our own promised land The future is ours Let us just take a stand

[Games Of La Francophonie, February 13th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in 2001 Canada will be hosting the IVth Games of la Francophonie. They will be held in Ottawa, the capital and a unilingual English city.

Here are a few useful statistics for the countries who will be coming to visit us and who will be told that Canada, “the best country in the world”, is bilingual.

First, according to Statistics Canada, 91% of the population of the city of Ottawa speaks English only, and 9.5% are francophone.

Second, the rate of assimilation of French speakers in the unilingual English capital of Canada is close to 30%.

In light of this, it would clearly appear that the expression best reflecting the true picture of the unilingual English capital will be a sign in English saying “Welcome to the Games of la Francophonie”.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 12th, 2001]

Silence is consent, says my colleague. This minister said that after the election of a majority Liberal government, I suppose he had a crystal ball at that time, it would re-establish the process and ensure that the right changes were made, those responding properly to the majority of the realities and needs of the people of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and of all Canadians.

He must have made this statement in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, which is why he named it. He concluded his statement by saying “I am committed—this minister is very big on commitments—to changes in the law, and we will make changes”. This is what the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport said. I welcome his contradiction of my quotes, if he is not in agreement, during the question and comment period.

These are two quotes which strike me as very eloquent. The Prime Minister said that they were wrong. As for the eloquent Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, he said they were going to make changes—“I assure you of this, I promise this” he said. Still we find ourselves back with Bill C-2 and its very modest changes, as I have been able to confirm to the hon. member for Yukon.

This bill, brought back despite those two statements, despite all the promises each MP and each prospective MP made in their respective ridings, makes me think of a still more important promise made by the Liberals, one they have also broken. If I asked the Liberals to tell me which one I mean, I would have a lot of different answers. Some would say the GST, some free trade, but these are not the ones I mean. We will not hold a contest, because there would probably be too many responses.

The promise that was not kept, and the two quotes prove it, is the 1993 one in red book one, with respect to the public's trust in the government and elected representatives.

In this regard, all parties are in the same boat. In 1993, the government promised to restore the public's trust. I challenge Liberal, Bloc Quebecois and Canadian Alliance members to go to their ridings and check out the public's general level of trust in us. This level of trust is very low, even after a promise made seven years ago. Why? Because we have the proof, in the two earlier quotes, that politicians, especially when they are in power, too often make clear statements, but do not follow through on their promises. The Prime Minister said he liked clarity. Here was the proof: it was clear they were going to make changes, they said. They said it even more clearly in 1980 and 1995. These changes did not happen, however, and there is still no sign of them.

In my opinion, the most important promise this government broke was the one it made in 1993 to restore confidence in this institution. If we had statistics on the votes of confidence in 1993 and those of today, I think that the rate would be down, and it would be for reasons like this.

The red book also promised an ethics counsellor appointed by and accountable to parliament. This political adviser appointed to restore trust, is another failed Liberal promise.

To restore trust, we might have expected fewer criminal investigations; there are many of them, including several in the riding of the Prime Minister, among others, on a golf club he previously owned and on a hotel he also owned.

To restore trust, perhaps we should listen to the most eminent official in parliament, the one who, unfortunately for the Prime Minister, was not appointed by him, that is the auditor general. I believe the Prime Minister likes to say that we have the “best and most beautiful country in the world” and the “best Prime Minister in the world”. I congratulate him for the two Olivier awards that he won yesterday as the year's best international humorist.

But in this “best country in the world”, there is a good auditor general. The latter said in 2000 and repeated in 2001 that the way the surplus in the employment insurance fund was being used was outrageous and almost illegal. The Employment Insurance Commission establishes a premium rate according to the economic situation. The chief economist of the Royal Bank, who is here, could confirm that the employment insurance premium rate has to be defined according to the economic situation, whether things are going well or not so well, according to the money that is already in the employment insurance fund, and according to the current rate and to the current surplus in this employment insurance fund, which is twice what it should be, that is about $30 billion.

The auditor general says this is outrageous. He repeats that is outrageous, and the Prime Minister says “It is the opposition that is wrong”. It is not the opposition that says that. The opposition is quoting the auditor general, who has been repeating that there is too much money in the fund.

What does having too much money in the EI fund mean for workers and employers? Thirty billion dollars is an impressive figure, but it has been said that this is too much. First, the money is not used to help the unemployed but to reimburse the Canadian government's net debt. Once again, the auditor general is the one who says so.

The Canadian government deliberately took money out of the pockets of the employers and the employees to eliminate the deficit. That is a tax on salaries. If the government really wanted to be clear and honest, it would levy a tax on salaries. But once again, it prefers to disguise the truth to hide the fact that it is not fulfilling its 1993 promise.

Since I have very little time left, I will conclude with this. I call upon the government members to accept that at the very least the bill be divided in two so as to allow members from the Bloc to vote in favour of the very minimal amendments proposed to the employment insurance. If they accept, they could reach a larger consensus. I would also ask them to give us the possibility to express our opinion on the outrageous theft of the EI fund surplus.

[Employment Insurance Act, February 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, first of all I want to congratulate you on your appointment.

In response to the question of the new member for Yukon, I could read the list, because it is indeed not very long. There is the abolition of the intensity rule, the abolition of discrimination in the rule of tax clawback, the change in the definition of new entrant, the indexing of the maximum yearly insurable earnings and the reduction of the premium rate to $2.25.

I hope that answers his question and his interest for this subject. In a spirit of co-operation, he too could oppose this bill, because that is what the people in his riding would ask him to do if they had the same information available to them. Unless he must follow the party line, which would be very sad for a new member.

First of all, as my colleagues did the first time they rose in the House, I would like to thank the people in the riding of Repentigny for putting their confidence in me. This is a riding that you know well, Madam Speaker, as you visit it regularly. Since you represent the other end of the island of Montreal, you have the opportunity to come by often.

So, the great riding of Repentigny is an urban riding composed for the most part of young families that have elected me and given me their confidence for a third mandate. To all those who voted for me I want to give my wholehearted thanks and assure them that I will work hard, as I have over the last seven years, to stand up for their interests here, in the House of Commons.

First of all, I would like to talk about the previous bill, because before we talk about this one, we have no choice but to put it in context and look at its background.

We are debating today Bill C-2, but it is really a new incarnation of Bill C-44. Technically, Bill C-44 died on the order paper, because the government House leader, with all his goodwill, made sure the Liberals did not call an election after passing such a revolting bill. He did not see fit to use closure or other parliamentary tricks to gag the opposition. He made sure the bill would die on the order paper so they could appear, during the campaign, to be more open on this bill.

Bill C-44, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act, has disappeared. The Prime Minister, who is in China today, has made this comment about the bill: “We realized that this was not a good decision, and we should not have done this”.

The Prime Minister said that Bill C-44 was not a good idea, but one of his ministers is much more talkative. The minister responsible for amateur sport often stumbles in his public statements. Hon. members will certainly agree with me. He never misses a chance to voice his strong opposition when a government decision is not to his liking. If he does not agree with me, the minister will get a chance to say so during the questions and comments period, and if he does not say a word, it is because he agrees—

[Official Languages, February 8th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we learned that Air Canada is currently surveying passengers on its regional flights in the west as to whether they prefer service in English or in French. In this way, Air Canada hopes to get out of its obligation to provide services in French if at least 5% of its clientele demand services in both official languages.

Can the Prime Minister tell this House whether this 5% figure is the one he had in mind when he introduced in the throne speech the concept of “sustainable minority community”?

[Speech From The Throne, February 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry. I also want to wake him up from his deep sleep and tell him that he is not in the National Assembly but in the House of Commons and that issues such as dropping out and health are provincial jurisdictions.

The hon. member sat in the Quebec National Assembly through two mandates. He should know or remember these things. Considering that he even forgot about his promises to build bridges when he was sitting in the National Assembly, perhaps we should ask him about that now. That will be my main question later on.

The hon. member said there were no economic spinoffs in the riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry because voters voted for the wrong party. Was he an MNA under Taschereau or in a modern era? Because this is no longer how things work, or at least it should not be the case, unless the Liberals' policy is to penalize those who do not vote for them. It seems to me that this is what was implied in his speech.

As for the unemployment rate, I should inform the hon. member that, in Quebec, the riding with the highest unemployment rate is Saint-Maurice. Yet, for 33 years now, it has been represented by a guy who supposedly belongs to the right party.

In his mailer, which I have here with me, the hon. member clearly promises his voters—this is crystal clear, it is not a commitment but a promise—that two bridges will be built. Now that he has been elected, now that his constituents have put their trust in him, will the hon. member tell us if he intends to fulfil his promise and build these two bridges during the current mandate?

[Fulgence Charpentier, February 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, Fulgence Charpentier, the dean of journalists, passed away yesterday at the age of 103. A citizen of the world, he achieved his dream of witnessing three centuries of history through which he followed his exceptional career.

This Franco-Ontarian, one of the most prominent representatives of the French Canadian culture, was a source of pride and will remain a model for us all. He said recently that one of the reasons he had wanted to be a journalist was so he could defend the cause of French and speak without restriction of the life of francophones of the region and the country.

In the final years of his life, he felt that things were not really changing and that history was continually repeating itself. Still, he defended the cause of French throughout his life.

We thank him for his secular wisdom and the example of perseverance and integrity he set for us and hope that many of us will draw on it.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I offer his family and friends our most sincere condolences.

[Speech From The Throne, January 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we are not the only ones concerned. The Commissioner of Official Languages has some concerns about this new concept or definition as well.

Could the Minister of Canadian Heritage or the Prime Minister give us a clear definition of what a sustainable minority community is?

[Speech From The Throne, January 31st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, on pages 18 and 19 of the throne speech, it says, and I quote: “Government reaffirms its commitment to support sustainable official language minority communities”.

Can the Prime Minister give us a clear definition of what a sustainable minority community is?