Antoine Dubé

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the answer given by the member for Burin-St. George's to his colleague concerning a cultural affairs program. This is all very nice, but the issue here is youth unemployment. The member is pleased that the unemployment rate is a mere 25 per cent, that it has gone down somewhat. I find that rate to be very high. It is at least 8 per cent higher than in the rest of the country.

I have a question for the member, since he provided some figures. Last year, when I sat on the human resources committee, we went to Newfoundland. People told us, of course, that the number of UI claimants had gone down, that the number of welfare recipients had gone up, and that young Newfoundlanders were leaving the province in droves because they could not find work there.

Since the hon. member surely knows by heart the exact figures for Newfoundland, I would appreciate it if he would provide them.

[Business Of The House, March 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I had a question, but I will let the hon. member for-

[Manpower Training, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary deals with a different but somewhat related issue. Will the minister confirm that manpower training is part of the government's constitutional plan A and that the government is deliberately postponing its withdrawal from that area to extol the virtues of federalism in Quebec, at the expense of thousands of men and women, mostly young ones, waiting to get adequate training?

[Manpower Training, February 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question also is directed to the new Minister of Human Resources Development.

As we know, Quebec has been asking since 1965 that it be given full powers regarding manpower training. Yet, we learned this week that the new human resources development minister is giving himself three years to withdraw from this provincial area of jurisdiction.

Why is the minister refusing to immediately give full powers to the Quebec government, when all the stakeholders from labour and management, the various community groups, and even provincial Liberals in Quebec support that demand?

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 12th, 1995]

As you know, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House of Commons passed a motion recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. For us in the Bloc Quebecois, this motion was pointless because it was insufficient. Why? Because it does not recognize Quebec's special status and does not actually grant that province any additional powers.

Today we are debating Bill C-110 dealing with constitutional amendments. This bill would give certain provinces a say concerning the federal veto over constitutional amendments.

There have been many speeches so far, and I think it would be a good idea to remind those listening to us of the bill's purpose.

The bill reads as follows:

No minister of the crown shall propose a motion for a resolution to authorize an amendment to the Constitution of Canada- unless the amendment has first been consented to by a majority of the provinces that includes: a ) Ontario; b ) Quebec;

This majority must also include the Atlantic provinces, provided that at least two of the four provinces represent 50 per cent of the population; and at least two of the three prairie provinces, provided that these two provinces represent 50 per cent of the population.

Following the representations made by BC residents, and particularly by the third party, British Columbia was granted a veto. One might think that, had some pressure also been exerted by residents of other parts of the country, for example Yukon or the Northwest Territories, these regions might also have been given a veto.

If Bill C-110 is passed, three provinces will have a veto: Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia. The other provinces would have such a veto by groups of two, as long as they represent 50 per cent of the population of their region.

What did the 1982 formula provide? Let us compare the current proposal with the 1982 formula. The 1982 Constitution provides a veto, not only for the federal government, but also for the provinces, although that constitution was rejected by Quebecers, through their National Assembly, in 1982. There is a formula provided in the Constitution.

What does it say? It provides that constitutional amendments require the approval of seven provinces, or 50 per cent of the total population.

In our opinion, Bill C-110 offers less than Meech and Charlottetown. Quebecers thought Charlottetown did not go far enough, while the rest of Canada, and particularly the western provinces, felt that it was going too far. Since Bill C-110 provides less than that, you will understand that the Bloc Quebecois, which looks after the interests of Quebecers, is not happy with that measure. The Reform Party, which primarily represents western Canada, thinks it is still going too far. This is a catch 22 situation, and the more we forge ahead, the worse things get.

Another major problem with Bill C-110 is that it only commits the House of Commons. Therefore, it can be assumed that, following a change of government, after an election, the Reform Party could hassle the new government and, if it displayed its current attitude, could prompt that new government to repeal this piece of legislation.

This is not really a constitutional change, but merely a bill that could be superseded by another, as the current government could easily do, given its majority.

But the fundamental problem with the federal system as we know it rests mainly with a distribution of powers that favours the federal government too much. Through its spending power and under special circumstances, it invades provincial jurisdictions from which it never withdraws afterwards.

The Quebecers who voted on October 30 were hoping for a more meaningful veto. They will not buy this bill that may be amended by the next government. The provinces did not consent to this bill being introduced.

Why not have had this veto proposal tested by submitting it to the provinces for discussion? No, the Prime Minister did try to get discussions going, but he was put in his place in no time flat, as they say. So, he consulted only with the members of his party in the federal government.

Now the amendment to include British Columbia in the deal made the people of Alberta and the aboriginal peoples unhappy. As we can see, instead of putting an end to the debate, this bill is keeping it going. If that trend can be reversed, it should be pointed out.

But what matters to the people of Quebec is that they are a people, one of the founding peoples of Canada. For any negotiations on the future of Quebec to be successful, it must be recognized from the outset that the people of Quebec are masters of their own destiny. Bill C-110 respecting a so-called veto for Quebec does not meet the expectations of one of the founding peoples of Canada, namely Quebec. This bill responds solely to the electoral ambitions of the Liberal Party of Canada.

All of the governments of Quebec for the past 35 years have, as representatives of the people of Quebec, demanded repatriation of the legislative powers that will be essential for Quebec's social and economic development. All of Quebec's efforts to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada over the past 35 years have arisen out of a desire to change how powers are shared.

This bill is not a satisfactory response to the promises made by the Prime Minister at the meeting in Verdun in late October. No one in Quebec believed the federal government would propose such an insignificant veto to the people of Quebec, not even the militants of the Quebec Liberal Party who voted no on October 30, 1995. No Quebec government, whether PQ or Liberal, has ever had such an insignificant change to the constitutional amending formula in mind. Quebec has traditionally demanded a true constitutional veto for Quebec, not a mere legislative promise not to proceed unilaterally during the lifetime of this present government.

It would appear that the Prime Minister wants to save face by pretending to keep his referendum promises, but Quebecers have not been taken in. This sham veto does not meet the needs for change expressed by Quebecers-far from it. All that it is is a continuation of the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982 and the imposition of Trudeau's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and none of this was agreed to by Quebec, not only not by the PQ, but not by the Quebec Liberals either. Even Claude Ryan, that ultra federalist, who was then leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, did not agree.

Instead of offering constitutional change, this is one more padlock to prevent future constitutional changes in a process already complicated by the so-called Canada Bill of 1982, which required the consent of the federal government and seven provinces out of ten representing 50 per cent of the population. And now, the federal government will make exercising a veto even more difficult. In addition to the veto powers I just explained, the government's own veto will depend on how it is exercised by five regions, in two of which the consent of at least two provinces will be needed.

Quebec's motto is: "Je me souviens", and we on this side of the House remember that the man who moved the patriation of the Constitution of 1982 is the same person who is now proposing a padlock that will prevent any future changes.

[Employment Insurance Act, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this is not how I had originally planned to start my speech and, even though we are given only ten minutes, I would like to share my first reactions with the Minister of Labour.

She claims to have been very surprised by our response. She did not look that surprised when I saw her on television over the weekend, as she addressed a group of Quebecers, including members of the Liberal Party of Quebec, who reminded her and the public at large of the consensus in Quebec in favour of seeing all the money earmarked for employability development and occupational training measures as well as all employment-related services be handed over to the Quebec government, which must be in charge.

In our view, being in charge does not mean being responsible for implementing national standards or reaching national goals imposed by the federal government. This is a clarification I wanted to make at this stage. In a certain way, the Minister of Labour tried to divert the debate onto that subject. I would like to come back to the substance of this bill, such as the objectives that the Minister of Human Resources Development outlined this morning.

He started by saying: "You know, we are taking a special measure in the House to ensure that this bill goes to committee as soon as possible". He made this out to be positive.

It should be pointed out, and you know that it is, Mr. Speaker, that this is an exceptional measure, a type of measure that this government has used three or four times already over the past two years, supposedly to speed up the process. We must look at the context.

If consideration by the committee was so urgent, and I am putting the question to the government, why did it wait for so long after tabling the green paper and after last year's tour, to bring this bill back to the House? The government waited for something called the Quebec referendum on sovereignty.

It waited for the referendum, because it knew that introducing a bill that provides for cuts totalling some $2 billion, including $600 million in Quebec, might influence the outcome of the referendum. So, the government waited until after the referendum. Still, it could have tabled its bill a few days, or even a few weeks after the referendum. Instead, the government brings this legislation back to the House on the Monday of the last week before the Christmas recess.

Why? To get a better idea of what Canadians think of the bill. Oh, sure. The minister knows full well that December is like the summer months. The media are less interested in such debates, and the public does not read the papers or follow the media as much, because it is busy doing other things.

The government has the nerve to say that it is to make things easier. Come, now. The human resources committee will probably sit this week. What does that mean? Interested groups will be asked to submit briefs in January; in short, those wishing to present such a brief will have to take time during the holiday season to prepare a brief, have it approved by their officials, and make sure it gets here before the deadline. This is not democracy, it is just the opposite.

It is an old trick used by many bodies. I have seen it used by municipal governments, namely to present controversial projects during the Christmas or summer holidays. It is an old trick often used. It is not very clever, it has been done before, and anyone with any degree of critical sense can see right through it.

We are being presented with this and, of course, we will attend committee proceedings. But for the sake of this, we are sacrificing the debate which should have taken place in the House, starting with 40 minute speeches followed by 20 minute speeches by as many members as were interested in expressing their views, from both sides of the House, the official opposition, the government, and the third party.

But instead, the government wants to consult. The parliamentary secretary might remember the consultations we held last year in December. The weather was not very cold yet. We started in mid-November and kept at it until the Christmas holidays. We went all over the place, in every major city, and no one, no organization supported the government 's position, on the contrary. Between 75 and 80 per cent of the people we heard were against the government's proposals.

And this is supposed to be a government that listens? No, Mr. Speaker, it does not. It does remember, though. Last year, in every city it toured, it was met with protests. It remembers and is thinking: "If we act faster, we might hold the hearings in Ottawa, and people will appear in committee there".

I challenge the government to go and present its UI project in major cities. I bet it will not do it, hoping to proceed unnoticed, in the deep of winter. The committee will get briefs from national organizations, but not from citizens. I remember the last hearing, last year in Bathurst, when Acadians came to tell us how difficult and dangerous it would be for this part of New Brunswick. They

feared the worst, because of the cuts the government said it would make somewhere. This time, we are not going to do the same.

As opposition critic for training and youth, I would like to take the last few minutes I have left to tell you how much damage this bill will do to young people in particular. The minister was saying: "This bill is very progressive". I say this bill is regressive. The minister was talking about fairness for everybody, I say that, on the contrary, it is unfair for young people. Why? Because from now on, to be eligible to unemployment insurance, you will need 910 hours of work, instead of the present 300 hours.

This bill is not only bad for young people, it is also bad for women who re-enter the workforce. After raising their children, many women would like to get a job, but they will be in the same situation as young people. This legislation is also regressive for new immigrants looking for jobs after landing in this country.

The 910 hours mean 26 weeks at 35 hours per week. This is a considerable number of hours.

Before that 20 fifteen-hour weeks, that is to say 300 hours of work, were enough for first time claimants to qualify for benefits. After the reform you will need 26 thirty-five-hour weeks, that is to say 910 hours of work, to be eligible for benefits.

Before the reform 12 fifteen-hour weeks, or 180 hours, were enough to qualify for benefits in areas of high unemployment.

After the reform 28 fifteen-hour weeks, or 420 hours of work, will be necessary to be eligible for benefits in areas of high unemployment.

Before the reform, people who were already entitled to unemployment insurance and who had worked 20 fifteen hour weeks, or 300 hours, were able to collect benefits in low unemployment areas. After the reform, they will be able to collect benefits if they have worked 20 thirty-five weeks, or 700 hours.

Here is another case of inequality. For frequent users, that is people who have been on UI three times in five years, there is an absolute guarantee that their benefits will be reduced by at least 1 per cent each year, which is at least 5 per cent in five years. This category of unemployed workers will definitely lose out. And the government says yes to equity? What the minister is saying about equity is that a number of people who were working less that 15 hours a week did not have to pay UI premiums. Now, everyone must pay from the first hour of work. However, there is no guarantee that they will be able to benefit from it, quite the contrary.

According to the Canadian Labour Congress, in 1970, 77 per cent of unemployed workers were covered by UI. This percentage would be less than 50 per cent today. The Canadian Labour Congress estimates that, with the reform, two unemployed workers out of three will not be eligible for benefits. Is that equitable? Is that progressive? I say no.

Since you are inviting me to do so, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by pointing out that if this reform had been known in detail in the form of a bill and if a real consultation was still going on in an appropriate context and an appropriate period, and if this period had been established before the Quebec referendum, I tell you sincerely that we would now be talking about other things in this House, because this reform would not have been adopted.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is really too bad that the Minister of Human Resources Development considers unemployment insurance as a drug.

I would like to ask a question from a different perspective. Does the minister agree that individuals who work less than 490 hours annually will never be eligible for unemployment insurance although they have to pay premiums, which has not been the case so far?

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Human Resources Development.

As we know now, the minister's reforms will triple the number of hours required to be eligible for unemployment insurance for the first time, from 300 to 910 hours. In so doing, the minister penalizes thousands of young people who are trying very hard to get into the labour market as well as thousands of women who want to go back to work, because they will need more than six months of full time work to qualify.

Will the minister admit that all workers who lose their jobs and apply for unemployment insurance for the first time after having worked less than 18 hours a week for one year, will not be eligible for benefits, even if they paid premiums during that time?

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in his remarks, the parliamentary secretary talked about "real Canadians", and then about "real problems".

We on this side also feel we are talking about "real problems", and we also happen to feel there exists such a thing as "real Quebecers", but they include not only Bloc members who are intent on paralysing the government. The parliamentary secretary himself read the resolution passed by the Quebec National Assembly. This resolution was supported and passed by all members. It was supported by the Parti Quebecois members on the government side, but also by members of the Liberal Party of Quebec.

Needless to say, the official opposition does not feel isolated on this side of the debate as he would have us believe by saying we are the only ones who do not want to co-operate and discuss solutions.

Let me put a few questions to the parliamentary secretary. Concerning the partnership he was talking about, what does the federal government intend to do about employability development organizations? I should point out that all of them have been advised that their mandate will be over on March 30th. What will happen to them after that? After all, they are funded by the federal government. Could he outline the alternatives for me?

Time permitting, could he also tell me what will happen with the program for independent students? Funds for this program ran out a long time ago in many ridings. It is all very fine to have programs, but what good are they when there are no funds? What does the government intend to do between now and March 30th for those people who want to go on training? This is an existing program. What is it that prevents the federal government from keeping those programs alive until an agreement is reached?

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment before replying to the secretary of state for the status of women. For reasons of time, I cannot answer all of her questions. However, I want to make an observation. Most of the hon. member's comments had to do with the UI project, while today's debate is on a motion dealing with manpower training.

Through the Chair-since we must always comply with parliamentary rules-I want to provide some information to the secretary of state for the status of women, who asked specific questions.

Why is it that we, Quebecers and Bloc Quebecois members, will not fulfil her wish to see Quebecers accept that the federal government bypass their provincial government in order to go directly to individuals? That is what she said, they want to reach individual Canadians. The hon. member said that we are really turning this into a power struggle. This is what she is suggesting: "You are turning this issue into a power struggle and, because of that, we, the federal government, have a problem adequately reaching individuals". Such a view truly reflects an attitude which still prevails and which has to do with reaching Quebecers, individually, in fields that come under Quebec's jurisdiction.

The hon. member sees this as a power struggle. Earlier, in my comments, I tried to show the adverse effects of maintaining such duplication on these same individuals who want to get proper training.

At one time, there were 25,000 people in Quebec seeking to get vocational training, but unable to get it, because sometimes one level of government would not have the required funds, while at other times it would be the other one. The funds allocated to a particular program had run out. There were some 30 federal programs, and approximately the same number of Quebec programs. Confused by all this overlap, the unfortunate individual was sometimes discouraged. Because they kept on trying others obtained the information they required, but it was often too late because the funds had run out.

For example, people registering in employability enhancement centres could be asked if they were UI recipients. If they said: "No, I am on welfare", they would be told they did not qualify and should turn to the Quebec government or to Quebec funded agencies. The reverse was also possible for welfare recipients. It is always like that.

I am quite familiar with current federal programs, because I have been studying the issue thoroughly for the past two years, and I can say that only 15 per cent of welfare recipients can benefit from federally developed or supervised activities. The same thing can be said about the province, and one must understand the reasons for that situation.

As Quebec must pay welfare benefits, even if 50 per cent of the funds come from the federal government, the province was well advised to create programs that helped people qualify for UI benefits, which is what they did. When they qualified for UI benefits the federal government decided to develop a program to retrain them.

I have been in the House two years now and I know that some of my constituents have registered in one program after another but are still unemployed because the system has not met their needs.

We are exposing that problem and we want it solved. According to the consensus reached in Quebec since the employment forum, only one government, the Quebec government, should have full responsibility for manpower training. That is what Quebec wants.