Michel Bellehumeur

[Employment Insurance Act, May 6th, 1996]

Another thing that bothers me somewhat about all this analysis and about the whole issue of unemployment insurance, is when they limit or try to limit my right to stand up and express my views. I feel this has been done many times with regard to this bill. It was done right at the start when we skipped second reading to allow members to study the bill in committee and hear people before making recommendations. The aim of this process was to enhance the members' contribution. However, what did the government members do in committee? They gagged us so that we could not work at this bill, which is unacceptable.

Or course, the government did not want to see people like the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce come to every hearing and say that this is a bad bill for such and such a reason, with very specific cases. Obviously, the government did not want to hear that.

Nor did it want to hear Bloc members echo their constituents' views that women and young people will not benefit from this bill, and that the unemployed will get clobbered. The government did not want to listen. It introduced a gag motion, and it is doing so once again at report stage. It is turning a deaf ear to people's views.

The government's goal is quite specific. It wants to save money on the backs of the unemployed. So we can understand why the government is doing what it is doing.

The government and the minister just sound ludicrous when they say these amendments are good, because unemployment insurance will be replaced by employment insurance. When one looks at the outcome of these amendments, it would be more appropriate to call it poverty insurance, because the only sure thing with this bill is that the unemployed will have a hard time, and in more ways than one.

I have been trying to determine what this bill's goal is. With all the nice speeches we have heard day in and day out, would it be to create jobs? I think the evidence of expert witnesses in committee makes it clear that this bill will kill jobs. Nothing in this bill can create jobs. So that is not the goal.

Would it be to help the unemployed? How could it be, when the bill takes money right out of their pockets. Demonstrations and briefs to the committee leave no doubt. It is clearly not the goal. Would it be to improve the quality of life for women and young women? It is equally clear that this is not the goal. Even the true Liberal member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce just told the House that it was not.

I did look at the situation women are in, but since I am not that old, I looked even more closely at the situation our young people are in to see if this bill is going to be any help to them. Well, the answer is no. Nothing, whether it is in the rate or the premium calculation, is of any benefit to young workers.

So, why bother with this reform? It is easy to understand once you are aware of the financial situation of the government and of the calculation method used by the Minister of Finance. The main objective of the federal government is to grab $5 billion to pay off the debt. It is rather hard to see that the only way for the government to reduce the deficit is at the expense of the poor. It is shameful from a party that claimed to be close to the people and have social democratic leanings. It is disappointing to see that the only money the government has been able to grab was, again, at the expense of the poor.

The government is doing the very opposite of what Robin Hood did. It steals from the poor to be in a better position to help the rich. That is what this unemployment insurance reform is all about. Yet, in the red book and during the election campaign, the government did not, to my knowledge, say that it would pick on the unemployed, that it would grab them by the throat, as the Liberals love to say. I did not hear any such thing.

To do so, the government introduced Bill C-12. Look how thick it is, and the government wants us to pass it at full speed. The bill has over 100 clauses, and countless subclauses. There are many changes. We need go no further than clause 2, which is covered by some of the amendments we are considering today. In clause 2, the government gives a whole series of definitions, for things as simple as an affidavit. If you want to confuse the public, you might as well go all the way. Everybody knows what an affidavit is, but the government felt the need to define it.

There is also a definition of an interruption of earnings, a labour dispute and documents. There is a whole series of definitions whose objective and, maybe, only positive aspect is to make a living for lawyers. Since I am a lawyer, I may talk for them. Lawyers will use all those definitions to slow things down as much as they wish. The other side of the coin is that public servants will also use those definitions but not necessarily in the best interests of the unemployed, obviously.

The interpretation will be to the effect of restricting even more eligibility for unemployment insurance. We, the official opposition, cannot agree with that. That is why we are against clause 2 and asking that it be abolished. In any case, the legislator does not talk for the sake of talking. If a series of definitions is provided, they will have to be interpreted.

Even more important is the last point where the government says that this reform will help the unemployed as regards their employ

ability. In a clause which, again, goes against the pretensions of the government, it is clearly said that programs will raise the employability level of recipients.

Any decision by a public servant regarding the eligibility or non-eligibility of an unemployed person for a training program cannot be appealed. This is what this bill is all about. A public servant will make an arbitrary decision that the unemployed will not be able to appeal. Today, 75 per cent of appeals made by the unemployed are successful.

Why do you think the government has thought it necessary to put that in the bill? Simply because public servants will be instructed to crack down harder on the unemployed so that the government reaches its objective, which is to reap $5 billion. This is clear.

When the minister tells us that he will propose this or that amendment to improve the bill, this is hogwash because, ultimately, the $5 billion target remains. Let us reduce this $5 billion target, let us talk about a target of maybe $1 billion, and then the amendments might be significant. But ultimately, what good does it do to rob Peter to pay Paul?

The minister still has these $5 billion to artificially reduce the deficit, and to do it at the expense of the unemployed. This is the price we have to pay because the government does not care about the unemployed.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would kick myself if I did not begin my remarks by mentioning that at least one government member has shown some understanding in his analysis of this bill. Incidentally, he is from Quebec. I congratulate him even more for that. Thus at least one Liberal member from Quebec has understood. What the member said is exactly what we keep hearing in demonstrations and in our ridings.

This is a bill that, yes, has some improvements in some respects, but that, all in all, is a bad piece of legislation, a bill we must vote against. Hats off to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who stood in the House to say so.

[Petitions, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table a petition against the planned dredging operation at pier no. 2 in the port of Sorel, which would involve discharging contaminated sediment and sludge in open waters, on the shores of Saint-Ignace-de-Loyola Island. This petition was signed by approximately 400 residents of the Berthier Islands region.

These petitioners are dead against this project, which they feel is only shifting the problem from the south shore to the north shore of the river. They call upon the government to show respect for the quality of the fauna and flora and, if the project must proceed, they demand that the polluted sludge be disposed of on land. It is not good enough to just shift the problem, possibly to another federal riding.

[Referendums, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs admit that as long as his government thought it would win the referendums, it did not challenge their legality, but now that its back is to the wall, now that it knows it is going to lose the next referendum, it is trying everything it can think of to prevent Quebecers from making a decision about their future? That is the explanation.

[Referendums, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is throwing up a legal smoke screen to justify its intervention in the Bertrand case, which seeks to deny Quebecers the right to make a democratic decision about their future. And yet, lest it be forgotten, the federal government participated actively in both Quebec referendums.

Since the government has allowed itself the luxury of a Minister for Intergovernmental Affairs, and since he is here, it is to him that I address my question.

How does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs justify the fact that the federal government has never, until today, attempted to challenge the legality of the two referendums held in Quebec?

[Referendums, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the government is interfering with the most legitimate right of all Quebecers to decide their own future.

How can the Minister of Justice justify such a decision, because he did say that he would make it, when shortly before the last referendum he stated that the right of the Quebec people to express their will concerning their own future was a political position and not a legal issue?

[Referendums, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, according to today's newspapers, the federal government intends to show up in court on May 13 to question the right of Quebecers to decide their own future.

Can the Minister of Justice confirm this morning's news reports to the effect that Ottawa is about to intervene in court on May 13 to question the right of Quebecers to decide their own future?

[Referendums, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, and the Prime Minister is still at it. Instead of playing cat and mouse with such a weighty matter as constitutional issues, could the Prime Minister say clearly, once and for all, whether he accords Quebecers the right to decide their future democratically themselves? It is simple: yes or no, Mr. Prime Minister.

[Referendums, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, up to now, the Prime Minister's approach in constitutional matters has been to complicate rather than to simplify. A number of influential federalist business people are criticizing his lack of vision and his government's lack of planning in this matter. His ministers' contradictory statements in this regard bear eloquent witness.

My question is for the Prime Minister. Whom are we to believe in this government between the Minister of Justice, who accords no more than a consultative value to referendums, and the immigration minister, who claims that, if the rules were clear, the referendum would have a real value?

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, under cover of a motion that is, after all, fairly ordinary, we immediately recognize the hon. members' pet themes: young offenders; licence to kill-it is rather odd to hear that in Canada; violent crime; shocking statistics; example setting sentences; jailing people is never enough; the length of sentences, lock them up for as long as possible, get rid of them.

I think the discourse of the Reformers is rather difficult to follow. These are the same Reformers who voted against firearms registration, when we know that the most violent crimes, the most odious crimes, the ones most often reported in the sort of sensational newspapers the Reformers read, are crimes committed with firearms. It is rather odd coming from members of Parliament, but it is par for the course from Reformers. They are hard to understand.

I would like to say to the Reformers that we, in Quebec, looked at these questions at least thirty years ago, and again last year during the hearings on the future of Quebec. People from throughout Quebec came to tell us that in a sovereign Quebec there should be a charter on the rights and responsibilities of taxpayers. It was good for criminals, victims, youth, seniors, taxpayers, the unemployed and workers. We needed a charter that would lay it all out.

It is true that, in addition to rights, citizens also have obligations. This must be recognized, and perhaps put down in writing, if necessary, but it must be done. The first step is to reflect on the question, give the problem some thought. What is not needed is inflammatory speeches and statistics out of context.

That being said, if the hon. member wishes to give it the time, and that is the question, should he not be thinking about prevention and rehabilitation, with due regard for jurisdiction?