Lost his last election, in 2000, with 42% of the vote.
Petitions September 22nd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table before the House a petition signed mainly by citizens of Stornoway, urging the federal government not to consider average family income in the calculation of seniors benefits.
I strongly support my fellow citizens of Stornoway.
Supply June 9th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take part in the debate on the Estimates, especially the $193 million allocated to the Department of Justice. That is a lot of money.
It reminds me of the surplus in the EI fund, which will apparently top $20 billion by the end of the 1998-99 fiscal year. I wonder whether we could not have the Department of Justice pay for itself, the way EI is expected to.
As my colleague so aptly pointed out earlier, in reference to young offenders, I have always thought that this was an investment that could yield dividends. If the government invested wisely and judiciously in solutions to the problem of juvenile delinquency, there would surely be fewer inmates being housed at government expense, for it apparently costs over $80,000 to keep one inmate in jail.
I now come to my main question for my distinguished colleague, the member for Charlesbourg. How does he think the government is being fair when it penalizes those who must resort to EI, when fewer than 43% are eligible, but must still pay $2.70 for every $100 of insurable earnings?
Supply June 9th, 1998
Madam Speaker, I have a few questions for my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, who is also the president of the Canada-Ireland committee.
The hon. member introduced himself earlier as a teacher of 22 years and a councillor in his lovely town for 11 years. To become a teacher, one must have one essential quality and that is fairness.
Had he had favorites in his class, our colleague, the hon. member for London—Fanshawe would certainly not have had such a long career because, as he knows, there is nothing that students hate more than unfairness.
How can this member explain that Ontario and Quebec have their own police forces, namely the Sûreté du Québec in Quebec and the OPP in Ontario, while in the other provinces, police services are provided to municipalities by the RCMP?
The federal government bills the other provinces, or the RCMP, for only a fraction of the actual costs. As a result, with 60% of the population, Ontario and Quebec pay 60% of the costs incurred by municipalities and provinces served by the RCMP. That is one example of unfairness.
Had he been this unfair as a teacher or city councillor, he would have been kicked out. When hit with a claim from Ontario and Quebec, which pay for part of the police services provided outside these two provinces, his government refuses to pay up.
Douglas Young, who used to sit over there, did not care about poor people. He unilaterally abolished POWA, a program designed to help older laid-off workers. He abolished it unilaterally, without consulting any province, simply stating he would come up with another program, a superior program of course, to replace it with. We are still waiting.
In my riding, the average age of the 305 workers who were laid off at the asbestos mine is over 52. A good number of these workers contributed to employment insurance for 25, 30 or 32 years. Now they are only being given 55% of their insurable earnings.
Worse still, Clermont Bégin, a 63-year-old former asbestos mine worker, has seen his EI benefits cut off by the human resources development office in Thetford because he did not tour the riding every day to look for a job. How can you expect the Liberal Party of Canada to instil a sense of justice in this country?
I now go back to my main question to the distinguished member for London—Fanshawe. Does he find it fair that Ontario and Quebec pay for 25% or 30% of the costs of police services in municipalities and other provinces without compensation from the federal government? Better yet, if the federal government charged municipalities and provinces for every dollar spent, then the money demanded from the Treasury Board for the justice budget would be much lower than the current $193 million.
Fishers Bill Of Rights June 4th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, seven months after the closure of the BC mine, we realize that the Minister of Human Resources Development's active measures are not working.
As of May 28, only 25 former employees of the BC mine had benefited from the minister's active measures. Sixteen use the supportable wage subsidy, nine are in training, either job related or general. Of the 305 miners laid off on November 1 last year, only 25 are using a small part of the $3 million announced by the minister for active measures.
What will the minister do with the money not used? This is the sort of questions the 100 former employees of BC came to ask the minister on Tuesday. They travelled 10 hours by bus from Thetford to Ottawa and ended up with a short meeting with the godfather of the riding of Frontenac—Mégantic, the member for Beauce, who simply asked for a photocopy of the file.
The minister should read the recent column by Michel Vastel on the subject. The minister is totally out of touch with reality. He should step out of his limousine. He has never been unemployed. He has never worked for minimum wage. He has never worked nights. He knows nothing of the middle class, the poor of this country who have nothing to give their children before they go off to school.
I remind the minister that his predecessor, Doug Young, made a commitment to replace the POWA with something allegedly better when he axed it on April 1, 1997. The Minister of Human Resources Development has done absolutely nothing. What will he do?
I put the question again: What is he going to do with the $2 million, the $2.5 million left unused in his program? He has no respect for the working class. He has no courage. He refused to meet André Laliberté and Charles Lacroix. What can he offer Clermont Bégin, 63 years of age, whom he wanted to cut off employment insurance claiming that he was not looking hard enough for work in a region where unemployment runs at over 11%?
What can he offer the 58 year old miner, who has a number of skills, but none recognized by other employers?
What about the miner, aged 48, with 28 years of experience and a sixth grade education?
The minister is so timid he did not even appear this evening to answer the men from BC. He sent his parliamentary secretary.
What can he say to Noël Loubier, 50 years of age, with 31 years' seniority at the BC mine? And to Richard Rousseau, aged 49, a labourer employed at the BC mine for 25 years?
I could provide him with a whole series of sad and unfortunate cases, but this minister is still not in touch with reality.
Asbestos June 3rd, 1998
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
Yesterday, as a result of a Bloc Quebecois initiative, diplomats visited the Lac d'Amiante mine in Thetford and had an opportunity to learn about the product and its safe use.
Why does the federal government not follow the Bloc Quebecois' lead and also take the offensive in order to reassure countries—
Bc Mine In Black Lake May 28th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, in spite of the insensitivity that characterized former minister Doug Young, he had at least realized that abolishing POWA meant he would have to replace it with something else. This is precisely what the workers at the BC mine need.
Since these workers have been left with nothing, should the minister not fulfil the commitments made by his predecessor and propose an effective solution to help these people? Otherwise, he might suffer the same fate as Mr. Young.
Bc Mine In Black Lake May 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the former workers at the BC Mine in Black Lake need help.
If the minister had made the effort to meet with them this morning, they would have told him that his active measures are not working.
Is the minister prepared to restore a pre-retirement program to support the efforts by Quebec and the company to enhance the BC mining employees' incomes until they retire, which is the only way they can be helped?
Division No. 158 May 25th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 before us contains various provisions, including one regarding the millennium scholarships program, which the Prime Minister would like to impose on and force down the throats of the provinces, particularly Quebec, whose loans and grants system is working remarkably well.
Incidentally, last Wednesday, in the City of Lac-Mégantic, I attended the opening of a new foundation, which does not make any waves or cause any jurisdictional problems. The founding president of the Montignac Foundation, Serge Poulin, who is the vice-principal of the Montignac school, together with the board, will carry out his duties on a voluntary basis and will be required to raise up to $1 million within five years in support of Montignac's high school graduates.
Unlike the federal government, this foundation does not plan to spend 5% of its budget on administration costs. Everyone involved unanimously agreed to work for free, not only in managing and administering the fund but also in raising funds, while it is a well known fact that the federal government has already earmarked $2.5 billion in the 1997-98 budget for scholarships that will not be granted to students for another two or three years.
It is a real scandal, and, in addition, it is causing barefaced duplication. The last time I spoke on this bill, I compared the duplication to the situation of a farmer with a mixed quota of processing milk and fluid milk. That means two ministers of agriculture will be managing the same cow, which belongs to the same producer.
There will be two levels of government, two heads of government, two forms for every student to complete to obtain money to continue studying.
Of course students do not care whether the cheque bears a maple leaf or a fleur de lys. We all know that the Government of Quebec will deduct from bursaries to students any amount it discovers the federal government has given them.
I would like to congratulate Serge Poulin, the founding president, and the members of his board of directors along with the members of the 15 municipalities surrounding the city of Lac-Mégantic, who will manage the Fondation Montignac. The region of Lac-Mégantic is very prosperous, with a level of unemployment no doubt under 6%. However, the average income is lower than that in the eastern townships. With this sort of foundation, we will enable dozens and dozens of students to continue their studies.
In closing, I invite the federal government and the Minister of Human Resources Development, in particular, to sit down with Pauline Marois and come to an agreement. It is disastrous when the government is continually sowing the seeds of discord and always looking for an argument or a run in with the provinces, given that education is a provincial matter.
Budget Implementation Act, 1998 May 13th, 1998
And the same cow, of course.
This government is doing the same thing to our students. The same student will have to send two applications for a loan or a scholarship: one to the Quebec government and one to the federal government. We are talking here about the same taxpayers, the same parents and the same students.
A few moments ago, I heard my friend, the member for Laurentides, say that 5% of the $2.5 billion will be used to pay employees, to pay for the forms, and so on. That means $1 out of every $20. If the federal government really wants to help our students, why does it not allow former students who are starting to repay their student loans to deduct the interest on their loans from their income?
If it were so generous, if it really had the interests of young Canadians and young Quebeckers at heart, it would accept our suggestion immediately and would gain from this situation that opposes it to the Quebec government. In the early 1960s, under the late Jean Lesage, whom I had the pleasure to work with in the Liberal Party of Quebec, an honest man who worked for the well-being of his community, the well-being of Quebeckers, the Government of Quebec established a loans and grants program in co-operation with the federal government. It is working exceptionally well.
Our students are leaving universities with a bachelor's degree, with an average debt of $11,000, while students outside Quebec, elsewhere in Canada, have an average debt of $19,000 or $20,000.
In Quebec, tuition fees are almost half those outside Quebec. It is not surprising that our English universities are filled with students from Ontario or elsewhere.
Duplication creates unwarranted and unacceptable expenses, and the result is, in Canada, we pay 27 % more taxes of all kinds than in the United States for equal services.
A second point that also hurts and offends students, the future recipients of these scholarships, and they demonstrated this in all the universities and cegeps of Quebec, is the way the federal government is getting ready—
Budget Implementation Act, 1998 May 13th, 1998
Madam Speaker, it is with great interest that I wanted to speak to Bill C-36, particularly with regard to the millennium scholarship fund. There are many reasons for this: first, because I am a father; second, because I worked in the area of education; and third, to show that, once again, we are duplicating structures.
I will always remember the farmer who, in 1970, convinced me to join in the fight for Quebec's sovereignty. He lived on concession 7 in a small community in my riding. His argument was quite simple.
“Jean-Guy, take a good look in my barn”. He had a magnificent herd of Ayrshire cows. That dairy farmer had a mixed quota: 50% fluid milk and 50% industrial milk. The part of a cow's production used for industrial milk was under federal jurisdiction, whereas the part used for fluid milk, the kind we drink every day, was, and still is, under Quebec's jurisdiction.
For the same cow, two agriculture ministers: one for industrial milk and one for fluid milk. All that for the same dairy producer—