Lost his last election, in 2000, with 39% of the vote.
Official Languages June 12th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, may I remind the minister that people will vote on the agreement tomorrow.
Given her answer and the fact that the CBC's francophone employees do not have access to their collective agreement in French, that they must sign a petition and appeal to the Commissioner of Official Languages to get one, will the minister admit, without trying to dodge the issue, that this situation provides a concrete example of how Canada's francophones are indeed treated like second-class citizens?
Official Languages June 12th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Tomorrow, some 700 French-speaking employees of the CBC will have to vote on collective agreements written in English only. As we know, these agreements are extremely important, as they drastically change the nature of labour relations at that corporation as a result of the Liberal cuts.
Since the employer stated that francophones will have to read and vote in English, what does the Minister of Canadian Heritage intend to do to ensure that the CBC's francophone employees have access to a collective agreement in French before voting tomorrow?
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation May 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, are we to understand from the minister's answer that, in the next federal election, the CBC should base its coverage on the fact that only 30 per cent of the Quebec population still supports the Liberal Party of Canada?
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation May 30th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
In its report on the coverage of the referendum, the CBC justifies its unfair treatment of the sovereignist side during the referendum campaign by saying that public opinion in English Canada was opposed to Quebec sovereignty.
Does the Minister of Canadian Heritage agree with the CBC's policy that the percentage of public opinion for or against a given option is a criterion in deciding how much coverage this option should receive?
Official Languages May 10th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I like the minister's answer, because, following his colleagues' example, he promised to do so in November 1995 and he has still not delivered. Obviously, this kind of response is proof to us that the promises of this government are never kept.
When will the government make public its information highway strategy?
Official Languages May 10th, 1996
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.
All the complaints received by the official languages commissioner concerning the language used by the federal government on Internet came from francophones. This is not surprising, since it is hard to see how the government would respect the Official Languages Act there, when it cannot even manage to do so using traditional means of communication.
Will the federal government follow up on the commissioner's recommendation that it make a clear commitment in favour of promoting both official languages in its information highway strategy?
Freedom Of The Press May 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, today is the world day in favour of freedom of the press.
The Bloc Quebecois joins with all those who will rise to remind us of the importance of a conscientious and honest press in a democratic society. We deplore the killing, the imprisonment and the disappearance of journalists whose only crime was to want to inform. In 1995, in Algeria alone, 22 journalists were killed while fulfilling their duties.
Although such a tragic situation does not exist in Canada, we must be vigilant, as evidenced by recent statements by Joan Crockatt, news desk officer of the Calgary Herald , who said that Southam News should create news on national unity and that it had a plan to promote national unity. This shows how fragile our system is.
In the debate that is currently-
Unemployment Insurance Act May 3rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in the debate on unemployment insurance reform. Like my colleagues, I will speak with the aim of shedding a little light on its impact on the world of culture.
This reform being proposed by the Liberal government will have a profoundly negative impact on people and employment, as the hearings of the parliamentary committee have shown. It appears to a number of people, including the Bloc Quebecois, that employment insurance, new terminology defined by the reform, is nothing more than impoverishment insurance. In other words, the unemployed have no more assurance of employment, but they have the certainty of going poor.
The conditions of eligibility have been tightened. Eligibility under this bill increases the threshold level from 12 to 15 15-hour weeks to 12 to 20 36-hour weeks, in fact more than double. The effect of this new eligibility criterion is to make the system less accessible to most employees, especially those who are currently working part time.
Whereas all workers will have to contribute as of the first hour, in Quebec, as in Canada, tens of thousands of workers will have to pay premiums without being assured of receiving a single cent of benefits in the event their job is terminated, and, in this regard, artists, creators and people working in culture will be penalized first.
Bill C-12 provides for employment insurance protection to part time workers and to those holding a number of jobs, but provides no such protection for self-employed artists. Artists are considered to be self-employed and therefore are not eligible for employment insurance. The government's main argument for excluding self-employed workers from the system lies in the fact that workers in this category can terminate their employment themselves, therefore voluntarily.
Of the 156,000 people working in the cultural sector surveyed by Statistics Canada, 29 per cent were self-employed, 47 per cent were employed and 24 per cent were both self-employed and employed. In other words, more than half the people working in the arts and culture are partially or fully self-employed and are therefore considered independent.
The number of independent jobs, that is, part time jobs and multiple jobs held by a single individual, increases much more quickly than the number of so-called traditional jobs.
Basically, the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, feels that Bill C-12 should be withdrawn. Our party wants the government to withdraw this bill and to have another consultation process to ensure a reform of the unemployment insurance system that is suited to the new realities of the job market, including the job market in non traditional areas.
Amazingly this bill on unemployment insurance reform does not allow self-employed workers to benefit from the system even though it was estimated that the costs to the system would be relatively low. Indeed, according to projections, extending protection would entail, percentage-wise, a relatively low increase of the system's net costs by the year 2004.
If Bill C-12 does not allow artists and many others workers in the creative and cultural fields to benefit from what is now called employment insurance, why levy premiums on their low wages when they are systematically excluded from the system? That does not make sense.
These people are denied access to the employment insurance but we levy premiums on their wages from the very first hour worked. Considering that most artists as well as numerous other workers in the cultural field cannot claim UI benefits or take advantage of employee assistance programs-they do not even have a pension plan-it is outrageous that Bill C-12, this UI reform project, does nothing to remedy the situation.
The employment insurance system conceived by the federal government and supposedly in tune with the 21st century's reality, offers no coverage to artists and workers in the cultural field. And I repeat, the new provisions concerning part time jobs and multiple jobs are no help at all for self-employed artists, who are not eligible for employment insurance benefits.
As official opposition critic in matters of heritage and cultural industries, it is my duty to condemn this government's lack of action and this reform's unfairness, since there is no definition of self-employment or independent work, and no rule or regulation is suggested concerning these cases.
The government did not deign to take into consideration the brief submitted by the cultural sector human resources council. To quote only one example, Revenue Canada recently communicated with several theatrical booking agencies in Toronto to tell them that since they were hiring actors, consequently they should contribute as employers to the unemployment insurance system. But the fact is actors are self-employed, they are the ones paying for the services of booking agencies, it is not the other way around.
It should be noted that in this particular case, Revenue Canada and its management are acting in such a way that they add insult to injury. Not only are actors, artists and creators not entitled to UI benefits, but Revenue Canada wants to extort UI premiums from casting agents or others, on behalf of people who are not entitled to benefits under this plan. We recognize here the Liberal way to do things for the sole purpose of padding the public purse and getting the deficit under control at the expense of ordinary people, especially artists, creators and cultural workers.
I would like to conclude by reminding this House that, in 1980, over 15 years ago, the federal government signed the UNESCO Belgrade recommendation concerning the status of the artist, clearly upheld in the Status of the Artist Act, which received royal assent on June 23, 1992.
The status of the artist, clearly defined by the Belgrade recommendation, endorses the notion that artists must be eligible to the same UI benefits as any other citizens.
As the opposition critic for heritage and cultural matters, I condemn this government's ignorance, its blatant ignorance regarding the Belgrade recommendation it signed. Nowhere in the bill on unemployment insurance reform, nowhere in Bill C-12 is there mention of the status of the artist, of the words artist, creator, cultural workers.
The words artist, worker, creator are not part of the vocabulary of the government or the Minister of Human Resources Development. We have every right, on this side of the House, to ask this government, in the name of justice and fairness, to withdraw this bill.
Copyrights April 23rd, 1996
Mr. Speaker, UNESCO has designated today as International Copyright Day.
The Bloc Quebecois wishes to take this opportunity to remind the Minister of Canadian Heritage that authors are eagerly awaiting phase II of the copyright legislation review.
Like them, we are ready to roll up our sleeves and work to better protect their rights, to obtain not just symbolic but real recognition of neighbouring rights, as well as royalties on data storage and recording devices.
We would be dismayed to see the minister use the legislative review process as an excuse to undermine copyrights by introducing a series of exemptions.
Copyrights allow originators to retain ownership of their work and to authorize its use. They must not be restricted but adapted to the technological realities.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation April 19th, 1996
I will put my jacket back on, Mr. Speaker.