Gaston Leroux

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine has just called me "a dirty liar". I think it was very clear. What I am saying concerns verifiable facts; I cannot accept this comment.

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the member has a short memory. I think he cannot see past the tip of his nose. I must remind the member that the Parti Quebecois government was elected only a few weeks ago and that, for the past ten years, it was his Liberal friends in Quebec who had been managing the health care system.

I would like to remind the member, who does not seem to be too firmly grounded in reality, that money you have to live on is not what appears on paper but what you have left in your hand. With an income of $25,000, I say that you live in poverty. If the member looked at the government's statistics, he would know that with $25,000 you are in dire straits. Many times, when you are paying for your groceries, you wonder if you should not put an item back on the shelf because you do not know if you are going to have enough money to pay the bill.

The money in your hand is a far cry from what appears on paper. When the amount on paper is $50,000 and you are left with only $25,000, it is because the government took the other $25,000. This is what it means.

Does the member realize that, while there are 800,000 unemployed people, his government has just taken some extraordinary steps cutting social programs and training, and that the Minister of Human Resources Development has just announced an astounding proposal asking students to get deeper into debt, under the pretence of making it easier to have access to training? What the minister is telling university and post-secondary students is this: "We are giving you better access to funding from banks and credit unions so that you can get deeper into debt and we are cutting grants and bursaries". We know very well that to get a bachelor's degree now, a student piles up a debt of about $9,000 or $10,000.

A student who goes as far as the doctoral or post-doctoral level leaves university $40,000 in debt. That is what your government is doing!

That government is doing nothing to stimulate employment. They invested in infrastructure, which is not a bad program, as everyone admits, except where do young people get jobs in the infrastructure program? Where do women find work in the infrastructure projects? Nothing, zero.

The Prime Minister said that when we see trucks rolling in the streets, the economic recovery will be under way. That is a very short-sighted way to look at economic recovery and it is especially short-sighted to think that you will put people back to work just by digging in the streets. It is an old, well-known model that works in some ways, but they did not think of training. They did not think of investing in young entrepreneurs. What the government is doing is the opposite of what it

announced during the election campaign. It was elected with NDP-style advertisements that said, "We will protect social programs. We will create jobs". It was elected with many promises that are now completely rejected.

The finance minister's budget and all the reform proposals clearly show us that they are doing the opposite and can only think of cutting $15 billion from operating expenses in the budget at the expense of all the poorest people, in order to protect their friends, the richest people who back that regime.

I would conclude with this. If only this government were honest enough to apply the red book, as they said in their advertisements, every time they refer to it, we could at least be working on the economic recovery in some ways, but they are not doing that, on the contrary. They are acting to the detriment of the very poor, women, young people, training, education. Again I say to the hon. member: If you have $25,000 in your pocket, you are poor in a society where everything costs more, with taxes on food, medicine, the basic needs of families, rent, etc. You may have $50,000 on paper, sir, but that is not what you have in your pocket. Remember that!

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine did not listen carefully to my speech, because I made it very clear that these figures were for net incomes.

[Old Age Security Act, October 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Richmond-Wolfe, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-54, which concerns an extremely important group of people in our society, to whom we owe a great deal.

A society which respects its seniors is one which respects its past as well as the wisdom and the maturity that come with it.

Such a society tends to create a healthy environment for future generations and it is the Bloc Quebecois' goal to promote and build such a society, and not to destroy a country, as Liberal and Reform Party members like to think.

In Canada, 21 per cent of seniors, that is 625,000 of them, live in poverty. The proportion of old people with low incomes is always greater than for the population as a whole. In 1992, the average income of families made up of seniors was 30 per cent lower than that of other families. Between 1982 and 1992, the average income of seniors increased by 6 per cent, compared to 10 per cent for the rest of Canadians. In 1992, the average income of seniors living alone was $18,434, while that of other persons in the same situation was $25,000.

This reality of the Canadian society certainly does not support claims by the Prime Minister to the effect that Canada is a good place to live.

It must be recognized that Bill C-54, which amends the Old Age Security Act and in particular the Canada Pension Plan, includes several measures which will have a positive impact on programs for seniors. However, this legislation is clearly inadequate when it comes to alleviating the problem of poverty among our seniors. On the contrary, some provisions of the bill reflect a strong desire by the government to increase social controls and to pinch pennies at the expense of the poorest Quebecers and Canadians.

Bill C-54 contains some positive provisions, like the ones making the application process for Old Age Security benefits, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada Pension Plan more flexible. For example, spouse's allowances will now be automatically converted into Old Age Security benefits when recipients turn 65 years of age.

This bill also includes some more provisions that could improve the lot of the elderly in both our societies. For instance, guaranteed income supplement and spouse's allowances will now be paid to the recipients even though their applications were late. Individuals will now be able to cancel assignments of pensions at any time, assignments meaning the transfer of all or part of a pension to a spouse.

Recipients will also be able to ask the federal government to directly reimburse the various provincial benefits they have received while they wait to become eligible for Old Age Security or Canada Pension Plan benefits. To exempt benefits from seizure and to let older people who want to appeal decisions to do so by making requests for reconsideration

instead of appeals are two more examples of measures aimed at improving the lot of the elderly in both our societies.

However, with Bill C-54, the federal government is proposing a piece of legislation that has absolutely no scope and that reflects its unwillingness to reduce poverty among the elderly. True to form, the government has deliberately chosen to increase its control over the poor people, while maintaining the parameters for an artificially rich society, which is, in fact, debt-ridden and on the verge of bankruptcy.

All of our social programs have been called into question because of the deficit, spending controls and especially the failure of the government to act. In the last budget, the measures concerning contributions to the unemployment insurance fund and the proposed changes to the age credits for the elderly clearly indicated the direction in which the government is going.

When public authorities attack the most destitute and vulnerable among us, as does the Liberal Party of Canada, it is the sign of a society with no plan for the future, a society which protects the rich.

Let me remind you briefly that all taxpayers who are 65 or over may claim a tax credit equivalent to 17 per cent of $3,482 at the federal level and to 20 per cent of $2,200 in Quebec. The change made in the last budget aims at reducing this credit for senior citizens with a net revenue exceeding $25,921 and at eliminating it completely for those with a net revenue of over $49,100.

We have to wonder if the government considers that a senior citizen with a $25,000 revenue is rich. Obviously, the meagre efforts to reduce spending are made on the back of the most destitute members of the middle class. In this way, Bill C-54 is the logical result of the first Liberal budget and goes well with the reform of the social programs proposed by the Minister of Human Resources Development.

In reality, Bill C-54 is part of the same budgetary reduction process as the social program reform. Thus, public pensions are as much under scrutiny as unemployment insurance and manpower training. Similarities between the first budget, the social program reform and Bill C-54 can be seen mostly in two aspects of this bill: first, the savings measures considered by the government, and, second, the greater number of organizations given access to personal information on senior citizens, which means an extension of the control measures.

As for the savings measures, the government says that the retroactive period needs to be reduced from five to one year to be in line with Old Age Security and the Canada Pension Plan. It should be noted, however, that every time we pay heed to this need, the result is always a downward adjustment. All things considered, the government is again tightening program requirements for the elderly.

Also, the government will have to explain what it thinks is wrong with the current clauses on Old Age Security overpayment. It is worth mentioning that, under the present legislation, the government can go back at most two years. By eliminating that limit to the retroactive period, the government would collect $2 million more. Since pensioners enjoy some protection from possible mistakes by government officials, the minister should indicate from whose pockets that money will come from.

Furthermore, I submit that it is indecent for this government to propose measures for deferring benefit payments when there is an appeal. The implementation of such measures could put many pensioners in a very precarious situation. The proposed measures would not have a major impact on most pensioners, but they nonetheless reflect the direction taken by the government since its election, namely cutting social programs, despite the commitment it made during the election campaign not to attack these programs.

The proliferation of control agencies, which was mentioned earlier, is another aspect of the bill to which the Bloc Quebecois is opposed. Governments are interfering more and more in everyone's private life and they accumulate ever more detailed information on each one of us. As we know, there is currently a public debate on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. New facts are being uncovered. We know since the 1970s that the inquiries on government management are made beyond public scrutiny and kept secret.

Although the gathering of some data is often necessary to process certain files, the government should always justify its new intrusions into people's private lives.

The government has not yet demonstrated the need to increase the release of information regarding seniors in both our societies. The Bloc Quebecois will not support this provision of the bill unless the government demonstrates this need.

Moreover, we think that the provisions regarding the penalties for illegal release of information are clearly inadequate. The clients of social programs must be protected in a very effective manner against any abuse that could happen in the passing on of information. The legislation should provide for special penalties for this kind of offence.

For these reasons, I will support the amendment proposed by my colleague, the member for Argenteuil-Papineau, which reads as follows:

That the motion be amended by striking out all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:

"this House declines to give second reading reading to Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Children's Special Allowances Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, because it does not provide a penalty under the Criminal Code for the disclosure of personal information concerning beneficiaries to persons who are not legally authorized to such information pursuant to Access to Privileged Information."

[Regional Development, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer surprises me.

Would the minister agree that the amount he mentioned for Saint-Jean was $5 million for building maintenance and organizing French courses, which has no connection with an economic diversification assistance program like the one the government set up at Cornwallis and elsewhere in Canada? I repeat, why is it yes to Canada and no to Quebec?

[Regional Development, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and the Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec.

In reply to a question I put to the minister yesterday to find out why Quebec did not have an economic diversification assistance program to compensate for jobs lost as result of the closure of the military base of the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean, the Minister responsible for the Federal office of Regional Development-Quebec said there was a program.

Could the minister give us some details about this program and its budget?

[Canadian Charter Of Rights And Freedoms, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Richmond-Wolfe and a member of the Official Opposition, I am pleased to take part in this debate and to explain our position on the motion of our colleague from Edmonton Southwest, to explain this position in relation to the new political environment both in Quebec and in Canada.

The private member's motion on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is very interesting in itself. Our colleague from Edmonton Southwest is suggesting that we add the word "responsibilities" to the title of the Charter, so that it would be called the "Canadian Charter of Rights, Freedoms and Responsibilities".

This motion reminds us of a fairly recent past when the late President John F. Kennedy asked the American people, and every individual in particular, not to ask what the government could do for them but what they could do for their government.

Remember the context of that time. It was the early 1960s and new frontiers to cross were appearing on the horizon of the American empire. Remember the invasion of Viet Nam, the conquest of space and the imminence of a new social contract.

I repeat, the idea of individual responsibility is not bad as such. However, the situation of Canada today is quite different from that of the United States in the 1960s. We may be on the eve of major social changes in this part of the North American continent and these changes will certainly not lead to a stronger Canadian state. President Kennedy's message was addressed to a nation. The Quebec people are not part of the Canadian nation and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not apply to them.

First, Quebec has its own charter, as we recall. It will soon have its own constitution. The debate on the responsibilities of a citizen in the context of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms do not concern us. Why? For Quebecers, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms symbolizes domination, not to say betrayal. Let me explain. The adoption and coming into

force of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms with the Constitution Act of 1982 marked the high point of the federal Liberal Party's policy of Canadian nationalism. The new Constitution of 1982, by entrenching a declaration of rights and liberties, took from the Quebec National Assembly legislative powers over language and education, rights which the people of Quebec had fought for since the Conquest.

The entrenchment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution Act of 1982 and the unilateral patriation by Trudeau's Liberal government mark a very sharp decline, indeed the abandonment of the most important British traditions in law and Canadian institutions.

British law and institutions base all of the state's sovereignty on Parliament alone, as a result of the long struggle between the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy. Contrary to British tradition, the 1982 Canadian charter reinforces individual sovereignty at the expense of state sovereignty. In other words, individual rights prevail over collective ones.

With the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it is the judicial authority of the Supreme Court of Canada which replaces the sovereignty of Quebec's National Assembly. The 1982 charter officializes, from a constitutional point of view, Canada's integration to the American continent, as Pierre Mackay wrote in a publication entitled L'ère des libéraux: Une réforme constitutionnelle qui s'impose, published in 1988 by Les Presses de l'Université du Québec. Indeed, the ultimate sovereignty in a state such as the United States does not rest with the Parliament but with the people, and the constitution is both the guardian and legal representation.

Thus, the precedence of the principle of distinct society for Quebec, in the context of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms entrenched in the Constitution, does not exist. That principle is violated by the power of the Supreme Court of Canada, which imposes the charter principles to all Quebecers.

Needless to say that the Canadian charter does not recognize the right of people to self-determination. Consequently, under the Canadian constitutional law, the only way that an aboriginal nation, or Quebec, could become independent would be through an amendment to the Canadian constitution, something which is absolutely impossible-as the hon. member said-given the amending formula provided in the 1982 Constitution Act.

The Canadian constitution says very little on the right of communities. As I said, the distinct or particular character of Quebec is not recognized in any way. The 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives individuals certain rights and freedoms versus the state. The charter allows an individual to go before the courts to have his rights uphold, a process which can even result in the invalidation of laws passed by Quebec's National Assembly.

The Bloc Quebecois opposes any Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and does not feel in any way concerned by the motion of the Reform member for Edmonton Southwest.

In Quebec, community life deserves as great a protection as that granted to individual rights by the Canadian charter. Collective rights in Quebec are essential to the survival of Quebecers and the principle of responsible citizens is part of the solidarity which reflects so well economic and human activity in various fields of Quebec society.

Following the election of the Bloc Quebecois at the federal level and then the Parti Quebecois at the provincial level, our province is about to undertake a major social project to ensure recognition of the unique character of its people. This is a project in which individual responsibility versus state responsibility will primarily be defined in the context of the new solidarity surrounding the consolidation and independence of that state.

[Defence Industry Conversion, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if Quebec got its fair share, how can the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec justify the fact that the financial compensation for the closure of military bases in Canada is accompanied by economic diversification assistance, while that is not the case for Quebec?

[Defence Industry Conversion, October 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, extending the forestry sub-agreement has nothing to do with whether Quebec is present at a negotiating table; this government made a formal commitment to renew the sub-agreement and should respect it. If the Prime Minister has forgotten, he should ask his minister responsible for regional development in Quebec, to whom I address my question.

Following the closure of military bases, the Maritimes received $20 million in compensation, Ontario $8 million, the western provinces $5 million and Quebec only received a meagre $200,000 for the loss of 1,000 jobs.

How can the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec justify the fact that Quebec got only crumbs as compensation for the closure of its military bases? Are we to understand that the minister has simply not done his job to defend Quebec's interests?

[1992 Referendum, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the effort that you are making and the difficult situation you are in. I also recognize that my colleagues in the Bloc see that one of their fellow members must remain firm in his decision because I deeply believe that the facts taken together do indeed show that he lied to the House.