Sébastien Gagnon

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 21st, 2003]

Madam Speaker, allow me to reply to the hon. member.

We, too, are not afraid to go into an election. Still, I have one fear, considering that one riding in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region has been eliminated. That sends the wrong signal to the people, and the people are not naive. They know they are losing population. They know that 7,000 people have left and that is why the riding is being abolished.

They have taken arrogance to such a point, that I would like to direct my question to the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst in order to demonstrate, once more, to what extent the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is partisan.

The hon. member will remember that when I appeared before the committee, I was told that the problem was the Chibougamau-Chapais area, which wanted to be part of the riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik. Seeing this problem, I went with my colleagues and staff to see this community and meet all of the elected officials and municipal councillors. In the end, we realized it was all a subterfuge.

The mayor of the town had sent a message to the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik saying that Chibougamau-Chapais should be part of the riding of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, while that was untrue and against the wishes of the municipal representatives.

When these facts were pointed out, when I was later told that it was the basis of the reason we were losing a riding, I did my homework. I came back with the results, but they ignored these recommendations, going so far in the final decision as to remove Chibougamau-Chapais against the wishes of its people. That is partisanship. I am sorry to say so, but I think it is despicable.

And why am I afraid for my community? Simply because, at this moment, if the election were called after the date the new boundaries were to come into force, it would give us some time to prepare the community. Some 7,000 young people have left the riding. If we make immeasurable efforts every day, we could reverse this out-migration. We are doing just that. On the other hand, with the loss of Chibougamau-Chapais, it is not just 7,000 people we need, but 20,000. And there goes our riding.

I want to say that we will oppose this to the end. They will have to answer to the people for the decisions made here in the House.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, October 21st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my hon. colleague for his comments that truly reflect reality.

I would like to ask my colleague the following question. During the democratic process launched by a commission, the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec, has he felt that the Liberals took an objective stand?

Along with members of my community, I took part in this democratic process. We appeared before the Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec. We were opposed to the second report. I even appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I do not think that the Liberals have acted in good faith throughout this process. At one point, I was told that the Chibougamau-Chapais community in my riding of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay would be transferred to the riding of Abitibi at the request of the municipality of Chibougamau. If that were to happen, the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay would lose 12,000 people.

I met with the municipal authorities and they told me that it was not true. They do not want to be annexed to Abitibi. They want to remain in Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay.

We are also being told that this is a democratic process and that population size must be taken into consideration. The region is of one mind on this. All stakeholders, all MPs, share the same opinion, and oppose the loss of an electoral district in the Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay region.

The Liberals on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs voted against the unanimous report. I might again question the good faith of the Liberals in this process.

As well, we are dealing with a bill intended to move up the effective date of the electoral map. I say that the communities of interest involved, that is Saguenay and Lac-Saint-Jean, could have been allowed to delay the process—should there be an election held after August 2004—and to hold elections under the old boundaries.

This would have given the communities of interest time to get prepared. Why is that needed? Because the two regions contain two rather different entities: Lac-Saint-Jean, with a history of collaborative efforts and common interests, and the Saguenay district. Now they are being backed into a corner and told “This is the new way of doing things and you have to adopt it”.

Once again, I have doubts about the objectivity of this approach. The community is being sent a really bad message by the government. We have a major problem in our area: our youth are leaving us. If nothing is done, we stand to lose 25,000 young people over the next 15 years. We are doing everything we can. Young people are getting involved in politics and all social groups feel a commitment to solving this problem.

We know we are losing some of our industries, but now the federal Liberal government is telling us we are going to lose an MP, who will be replaced by an Economic Development Canada service point. I have some doubts about that.

This is what I would like to ask my colleague: does he get the feeling that the people in the area he represents share these concerns?

[Agriculture, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the new agricultural policy framework includes less money for cattle producers than the special program did last summer.

How can the federal government wash its hands of its responsibilities to farmers who are going bankrupt, when it collects 50% of our taxes? If it collects our taxes, it has to assume the responsibilities that come with it.

[Agriculture, October 20th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the cull cattle issue, the Quebec minister of agriculture says that the federal government must make an effort and she is asking for help in convincing the federal government to do its share.

Given that 40% of dairy cows are in Quebec, several farms are literally going bankrupt and the Government of Quebec is asking the federal government to do its share, does the Minister of Agriculture intend to follow up on the requests made by the minister and the farmers?

[Canada Pension Plan, October 8th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank my colleague from Frontenac—Mégantic for reviewing the history of the system and explaning how it works.

However, the purpose of the motion is not to question the program as a whole but rather to question its unfairness. Before I start, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Churchill, for her initiative. It is a worthwhile one.

The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of Motion No. 197. I will read it for the benefit of those of are listening to us.

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should amend the definition of “pensionable employment” in the Canada Pension Plan to include workers' compensation payments.

We support this motion. Why? Because it is a matter of fairness. Why should victims of industrial accidents and occupational diseases be penalized when they are already penalized by negligence in the workplace, among others? Why kick somebody who is already down?

As we know, it is already possible to exclude 15% of the employment period as time absent from work. That actually does increase the average salary and, in turn, the amount of the retirement pension, as pointed out by my colleague. However, that is not enough. The situation must be corrected and, once again, I invite the federal government to follow the lead of Quebec.

Since the 1920s, a social consensus has emerged in Quebec among employers, the state, workers as well as unions as a whole, making the employer responsible for industrial accidents. I would like to point out that a certain prerogative in the Quebec legislation is a determining element in the difference between what is done at the federal level and what is done in Quebec, and I quote:

For the purpose of benefit calculation, the months included in a period where compensation is paid may be excluded from the contribution period. Such an exclusion must be to the advantage of the beneficiary of the benefit, i.e. increase the monthly average of pensionable earnings. Thus both calculations, with and without the exclusion, must be made to establish whether it is advantageous for the contributor.

If the exclusion is favourable to the contributor, it will take effect, and the benefit will be financed in part by all contributors to the Quebec pension plan.

Those are two major differences. The federal government is going after the workers, while Quebec is trying to help them. Which brings me to my next point. Why is the federal government hurting the workers instead of helping them?

Some would argue that this measure would incur expenses. Yes, it would increase social costs. But I would remind the House that the government has built up a $45 billion surplus in the EI account at the expense of the workers. Why not decrease EI premiums to avoid such unfairness?

This is a very simple solution that would bring us closer to a compromise and address the concerns of EI contributors as well as Canada pension plan contributors. If the federal government were sensitive to workers, it would try to eliminate such inequities in Canada. But this is not the only inequity. Let me give you some examples.

The Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area is faced with some serious problems. Our young people are moving away, we are dealing with the softwood lumber issue, there are few jobs and businesses are closing down.

Let us talk about employment insurance, another program that affects workers. Graduating students in the tourism or hotel industry who would like to lend a hand to the tourist industry in the regions cannot afford to take seasonal jobs, since they need to work 900 hours to qualify for EI. This is a serious inequity that has to be dealt with for our region to develop, stand out and increase its tourism productivity on a yearly basis.

We have the same problems with the lumber workers. Again, these workers never wished for this lumber crisis. There are caught in the middle of a crisis involving two partners, the United States and Canada.

But it must be understood that the federal government has the power to intervene to help these workers. And yet it is not doing so.

The Bloc Quebecois has suggested to the federal government that it give loan guarantees to businesses so they can turn to secondary and tertiary processing, thus allowing industry to find other markets.

We talked about businesses. Now let us talk about workers. The federal government could very well have helped workers between seasons by increasing the benefit period, but it did not do so.

It could also have eliminated the two-week waiting period. This is a two-week period during which the worker does not receive any benefits. But it does not want to do that either. And there is another injustice in the fact that it did so for workers who were affected by the SARS crisis in Toronto. This is unacceptable. Why do it in one region and not in another?

There is another problem. Just recently, national unions released statistics, and I will refer here to another group that has been hard hit in our region, namely women. In 1996, 48% of women received employment insurance benefits. Today, that percentage has dropped to 36%. Who instigated these drastic measures? The former Minister of Finance, the future prime minister.

I would like to give another example of an injustice suffered by the workers. My colleague, the member for Laurentides, and myself are currently promoting an anti-scab bill. This bill is important for workers across Canada. Indeed, there is a major difference between those workers who are governed by the Quebec labour code and those who are governed by the Canada Labour Code. Right now, in Canada, it is possible for businesses to hire replacement workers.

In Quebec, we heard some witnesses, including those who spoke about the labour dispute at Cargill, in Baie-Comeau, which lasted three years. The federal government does not even want to recognize this, yet there is no cost attached. It is only a question of political will. According to the data, in Quebec, a labour dispute is solved twice as quickly as in Canada. The data is there, the benefits are there. Consequently, why is the federal government refusing to help workers? Such a measure has been in existence in Quebec since 1977. It was implemented when René Lévesque was in office. We have solved most labour disputes.

I come back to my colleague. You know that, in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, there are four members of Parliament. Three are in the Bloc Quebecois and one is in the government party. Unfortunately, he cannot express his views. Yet, we have the same workers, the same problems in the area, but this member is muzzled by his government, by the interests of the party in power. This is unfortunate.

For the sake of justice, why would the government not have these people benefit from an appropriate pension plan, instead of penalizing people who are at an age where they should be thinking about retiring securely. These people have worked hard all their lives. The government, by using as an excuse a problem or an illness that that hits them at the age of 60, for example, would penalize them in their pension plan. But I believe and I am convinced that they rightly deserve this pension.

Simply for the sake of justice, let us show sensitivity to all these workers, let us provide them with all the dignity that they deserve.

[Committees of the House, October 7th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, since she had a hand in preparing this report and also made very useful comments, I would like to ask my colleague a question following what she just said.

The community groups that participated in all these interviews expressed a major concern. They wondered how to directly allocate this money, which is meant to help these youth and children at risk. In light of what the witnesses who appeared before us said, my fear is whether or not the right people are getting the money to run the programs.

I recommended that the friendship groups, which seemed very convincing and concerned, work directly with the clientele rather than other groups that are somewhat more political in nature.

My recommendation is as follows: that the federal government give money to the groups so that they can redistribute it properly to the youth who are directly concerned.

Does my colleague echo this concern? In the past we have often seen the federal government spend and squander staggering amounts of money that did not go to the people it was meant for.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, September 17th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, what can I say about my hon. colleague's remarks. I hope that many Quebeckers were able to listen to the debate tonight and see just how out of touch the Canadian Alliance is with the differences and realities in the regions and Quebec.

Of course, I also want to congratulate my hon. colleagues who spoke earlier on this bill, namely the hon. members for Roberval and for Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans

As they mentioned, the ElectoralBoundaries Readjustment Act is non-partisan legislation. And the commissions established in each province are independent.

In our region of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, during the readjustment process, we respected the framework of this legislation.

However, the tabling of the commission's proposal in July 2002, led to a definite uprising in this region, because it sought to eliminate one-fourth of all ridings or 25% of regional representation, under the pretext that there has been a decrease of some 7,000 constituents in recent years. However, what are we to understand when one-fourth of our representatives are being eliminated due to 7,000 fewer constituents?

It should also be noted that throughout this process, the entire community rallied together during public hearings. My colleague from Jonquière also circulated a number of petitions among her constituents. We also collected an array of resolutions from municipalities that are indicative of the feelings and the needs of our community with respect to keeping four ridings.

It was an all-out protest movement and everyone was on side. Everything was done within the letter of the law.

On March 28, following public hearings, the commission tabled its report, submitting a few minor changes, but holding to the idea of eliminating one riding.

The four members from the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region banded together to oppose this decision. The media also set the tone in saying that the public was against the removal of yet another riding in our community.

Later, I want to point out, still within the framework of this legislation, the four members from the region turned to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Subcommittee in order to be heard and present the special nature of our region to ensure that the four ridings would be preserved.

My colleague from Roberval and I tried to convince the committee to keep Chibougamau-Chapais in our region. Chibougamau-Chapais is the Oujé-Bougoumou native reserve and has a population of roughly 12,000.

The commission paid no heed to the Chibougamau-Chapais voters and annexed it to the Abitibi riding. That means a population of 12,000 is being taken away from us. Earlier, I was talking about a population of 7,000. The difference we need in order to recover our riding is no longer 7,000, but 20,000, which is totally unacceptable.

This political forum alone has the authority to recommend. We had one last chance for a unanimous recommendation from the House, which would have been good. The Liberal representatives on the subcommittee refused to be won over to most of reasons that were presented by the regional consensus. They behaved in a partisan manner.

They sabotaged the only forum that would have allowed the Liberal party to show some sensitivity with respect to the regions. The subcommittee report was presented on division, thereby removing any authority to recommend.

The commission stuck to its exclusively numeric vision and eliminated a riding from the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region. From a community of interest point of view, this elimination is true gerrymandering.

Throughout the process, the Liberal Party hid behind the arm's length status of the commission not to intervene in support of our region. Now that the axe has fallen, it has no qualms using its power to amend the legislation, solely for electoral purposes.

Supporting efforts made in a resource region to tackle the youth drain and ensure its development was not important enough to be clearly set out in the legislation.

I would like to digress to acknowledge all the efforts underway to counter the negative migration flow in our region. Businesses are closing. Young people are leaving for various reasons, including the lack of jobs.

We will not adopt a defeatist attitude. Just last week, the entire community got together to tackle this problem. This is a first. The unions got on board. Local employers, all our youth groups and the entire community decide to take charge.

Earlier, I talked about a shortfall of 7,000. It was feasible. But making up a shortfall 20,000 is quite another matter.

I chose to live in a region, and I am proud of it. I also chose to go into politics, because I had the desire to pick up the torch from those who have allowed Quebec, and our region, to become a modern society.

You can be sure that, on behalf of the people of Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay, I will vote against Bill C-49. I urge all my hon. colleagues in this House to also vote against it.

Solely for electoral purposes, the Liberal government feels free to amend the legislation. Abiding by the law would give our region a little time to adjust and, perhaps, positively increase our immigration levels.

This is an insult to the rural regions of Quebec, and people will not forget. The Liberals' attitude continues to reflect disconnection from, insensitivity to and a degree of arrogance toward the regions of Quebec.

[Softwood Lumber, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development has a very simple way to alleviate the effects of the softwood lumber crisis. She could extend the transitional measures that come to an end on October 5, thereby allowing more workers to qualify for EI benefits and for a longer time.

Yes or no, will the minister agree to extend the current measures?

[Softwood Lumber, June 6th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, a business in my riding, Scierie Lac-Saint-Jean Inc., has been added to the list of victims of the softwood lumber crisis. That makes 85 more employees without work today. At this rate, the Americans will be able to celebrate their victory before a WTO or NAFTA decision is ever made.

What is the government waiting for to take action and support the workers by improving the employment insurance fund and to help the companies by implementing phase two of its aid package?

[Air Canada, June 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Air Canada's accumulated debt is up to $12 billion. The company is getting ready to demand major concessions from its creditors, including several regional airports in Quebec.

The concessions Air Canada is demanding could cause serious financial problems for the regional airports in Rouyn-Noranda, Gaspé, Val-d'Or and Bagotville, to name just a few.

Having transferred regional airports that were previously under its jurisdiction to the municipalities, does the federal government intend to grant the Government of Quebec an equivalent subsidy to help the regional airports cope with the financial crisis that Air Canada might put them in?