Jean-Guy Chrétien

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-54, which we are debating this afternoon, and which the hon. member for Durham has so eloquently praised, still raises some doubts. The title, which is very long, reads in part: An Act to support and promote electronic commerce by protecting personal information that is collected.

I wonder how the Liberal member will position himself since, in the early 70s, the Trudeau government, of which the present Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister were members, directly ordered the RCMP to steal the voters' lists of a well-known political party. Does he think that the government of the day respected the integrity, the spirit and the letter of collective personal information? Even worse, instead of being fired, the RCMP officers who were found guilty of breaking and entering were promoted.

How can the member reconcile those actions with his party's stated intentions in introducing this bill?

[Petitions, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, through petitions, many residents of Saint-Méthode, notably Fernand Lachance, say they oppose Bill C-68.

They suggest that the federal Liberal government spend the hundreds of millions of dollars put aside for firearms registration on more efficient measures to reduce violent crime and enhance public safety, for example by increasing the number of police officers.

[Marriage Act, 1997, October 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on June 26, the Minister of Human Resources Development announced a regular POWA for the former workers of the BC Mine in Black Lake.

Yet a month before, he said in this House that these workers did not want a regular POWA because such a program was in unfair for workers. The minister got the message very clearly on June 26, when he announced the granting of a regular POWA, in Thetford Mines, because the workers made their disappointment clear, in no uncertain terms.

As the elected member for Frontenac—Megantic and representative of the workers of the BC Mine, I am asking two things from the Minister of Human Resources Development. First that he not use the extra $1.6 million that Jean Dupéré contributed to the fund for the calculation of his regular POWA. Second that he accept to sit down with Minister Louise Harel, of the Government of Quebec, and the president of the CSN, André Laliberté, in order to resolve the issue and destandardize his POWA with the $1.6 million from Jean Dupéré.

In conclusion, I want to remind the minister that many of the former workers at the BC mine have used up their employment insurance benefits, that the mine has been closed for almost a year, that older workers have difficulty finding a new job, that many of them are now in dire straits, that he and his government are standing in the way of any agreement that could lead to a satisfactory and quick settlement.

The Minister of Human Resources Development is the only one responsible for delays in the settlement for the workers at the BC mine. These men are anxious to live with security and decency.

I do hope that the Minister of Human Resources Development will soon have good news for the former workers of the BC mine in Black Lake.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I want to take part in today's debate on the Bloc Quebecois' motion concerning a project for social union, following the remarks made by the Minister of Justice.

When the government wants to right a wrong, very often it will change a name. Unemployment insurance quickly became employment insurance. When protesters shout too loud in front of the Prime Minister, he does not hesitate to grab them by the throat, to throttle them, to throw them to the ground and to let his bodyguards break their teeth. You will agree with me that such behaviour certainly helps drive his point home.

In this social union where the Minister of Justice talks about equity and social justice, I wonder what kind of justice she sees in the employment insurance program. The fact is that the government has accumulated a $20 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund over the last four years, mainly on the backs of the unemployed since they pay EI premiums, and yet, when they lose their jobs, 58% of them are not even eligible for benefits.

It is just as if 58 out of 100 people paying car insurance found out, after a car accident, that they were not covered. I find this totally unfair.

Premiums are much too high at $2.70 for every $100 of insurable earnings, especially since a reputable actuary said last week that $1.81 would be enough. I would like to know the opinion of the Minister of Justice on this.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Waterloo—Wellington has spoken abundantly about the social union, justice and social equity. To that end, he dragged out the old response of his Prime Minister, who has said time and time again that Canada is the most beautiful, the greatest and the best country of the world, a country that offers the best social equity. But when he is not happy with his opponents, our Prime Minister grabs them by the neck and throws them down.

I would like to ask the member for Waterloo—Wellington what he answer he would give, about social equity for example, to one of my constituents, Louis-Philippe Roy, a former worker of the BC asbestos mine, who received his employment insurance benefits on his first application. He has served 15 times as a pallbearer. He was paid $22 each time.

Having worked on 15 occasions and earned $375, he saw his employment benefits reduced by $102 per week on his second application. Since he still had 17 weeks of eligibility, Louis-Philippe Roy has been penalised by its government, which brags about its sense of social equity, to the tune of $1,734 because he had earned $375 for having served 15 times as a pallbearer.

Do you intend to encourage people on employment insurance benefits to find work and get themselves out of that black hole? When I hear the good member for Waterloo—Wellington, I have the impression he is living in a bubble, that he is completely disconnected from the reality of those workers on employment insurance benefits. What has become of his sense of social equity?

[Motions For Papers, September 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the lack of good will displayed by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government, I ask you to please call Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers P-10.

That an Order of the House do issue for copies of: ( a ) the public notices about the recent relocation of the Lake Megantic Human Resources Development Centre and ( b ) all other documents concerning the details of the agreement on the occupation of the current premises.

[Motions For Papers, September 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, ten months ago, I tabled a notice of motion for the production of papers, Notice P-10 to be precise, concerning the relocation of the Lac-Mégantic HRDC centre.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government give me a rational explanation for taking so long, more than ten months, simply on the relocation of a mini HRDC office?

Like the member for Frontenac—Mégantic, the people of Lac-Mégantic are starting to think that the government is not as white as snow on this issue.

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-10.

This motion was tabled on December 9, 1997. I merely wish to make sure that the move of the Lac-Mégantic HRDC office was carried out efficiently and without waste.

I have trouble understanding the Liberal government's delay in responding. Does it have something to hide? I formally ask the government when it will respond to this question, which was first asked ten months ago.

[Questions On The Order Paper, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding the Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. P-10.

[Petitions, September 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to table an important petition prepared by Nelson Guay and signed by over 800 inhabitants of the Lac-Mégantic region.

These people are calling for amendments to Bill C-68, primarily because of the costly and ineffective regulations. I support the petitioners.