Antoine Dubé

[Ferries, November 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.

We heard the news that MIL Davie was treated unfairly by the Hibernia consortium in the matter of a contract that would have maintained several hundred jobs at the Lévis shipyard and, meanwhile, the federal government has yet to announce what it intends to do about the proposal by the Government of Quebec for the construction of a ferry for the Magdalen Islands.

When is the minister going to respond to the proposal made by the Government of Quebec on November 14, and how can he justify his government's slow response?

[Quebec City Bridge, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The Quebec City bridge has been designated a historic monument by the American Society of Civil Engineers and is one of the finest engineering structures in Canada. This bridge, which was built between 1900 and 1919, now needs major repairs which, according to experts, would cost $45 million over a six-year period.

Since the owner, Canadian National, did not allocate the resources needed to keep it in good condition, the bridge has deteriorated considerably.

Given the importance of the Quebec City bridge as a rail link between the two shores of the St. Lawrence at Quebec City and its historic and tourist potential for that region, does the minister not think that this bridge should undergo major repairs and that the work should start as soon as possible?

[Social Security Programs, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened as the hon. member from the Reform Party outlined his party policy and we heard the government member's argument in reply. Of course, we have a position of our own, a third position. We agree in part with what was just said in reply about the need to proceed cautiously instead of cutting blindly.

The hon. member says that we should think about the future of Canadian youth, so that they can find jobs and eventually contribute to the pension fund. I am in full agreement with him on the objective, but I do not think that blind cuts are the right way to go about it. I think we should be looking at job development, joint action and regional development policies instead. To provide employment, that is what it boils down to in the end.

Cuts are necessary, but I think that we should look to cut in other programs, not in social programs. As a member from the Reform Party indicated, you do not eliminate unemployment by eliminating unemployment insurance. Some solutions may be too drastic. As if the unemployed were responsible for their misfortune.

So, I would like the hon. member to comment on my general remarks. As today's debate draws to an end, I wanted to raise a somewhat conflicting view.

[Social Security Programs, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I am on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development now holding consultations on social programs. The speech by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton made me shudder because it seems to overlook reality. It is based on the widely-held belief-too widely held in my opinion-that many unemployed workers lose their jobs on purpose. His talk of abuse almost implies that the unemployed are guilty of fraud. There may be abusers but I will start by asking him-I will have more questions later-if he can tell me what percentage of the unemployed are guilty of fraud?

His arguments sound funny when we look, for instance, at the miserly unemployment insurance fund. The human resources committee I am on heard a forecast from the minister but when we recently asked a senior official, he anticipated a surplus in the order of $2 billion in the UI fund for the year.

Now, why is there a surplus? Because UI was cut this year. The three series of cuts that he mentioned were implemented, and the hon. member seems to say that we should go even further. Let me refresh members' memories.

First, the amount of benefits was cut from 57 per cent to 55 per cent of salary; then, the benefit period was reduced to a maximum of 32 weeks.

I know that in the riding of Lévis, for example, the workers laid off by the shipyard are not unemployed voluntarily. After collecting benefits for 32 weeks, they will have no choice but to turn to their provincial government, even though the federal government picks up 50 per cent of social assistance costs, but it is still shifting responsibilities to the provincial government. The federal government is talking about making it even more difficult to collect unemployment insurance.

Yesterday, I met with students who, after completing their studies, may not be able to collect UI benefits because it would be even more difficult for someone who has not yet managed to join the labour force, as is now the case when after finally landing an insecure job a person is allowed to enrol in retraining programs.

I would ask the hon. member or another government member a little later to give us the exact percentage of voluntary unemployed who abuse the system.

[Social Security Programs, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the speech given by the hon. member for Lotbinière before Question Period. He addressed two issues, or two client groups, of particular interest to me in the context of this social security reform. He talked about young people and the tuition fee problem. I would like him to clarify his position on this.

I would also ask him, if we have enough time, to elaborate on unemployment insurance proposals concerning women.

[Post-Secondary Education, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the more explaining the minister does, the more complicated it gets! The bottom line is that the minister is only offering students the possibility of incurring an additional $10 billion debt. Period.

Will the minister admit that this option, which consists in getting more into debt, is the only solution he could find to make students absorb the increase in tuition fees which will result from his reform?

[Post-Secondary Education, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. The minister's answers to questions from the Official Opposition and to claims from students, who held a demonstration yesterday on Parliament Hill, only confirmed our greatest fear, namely that he will increase the burden of students through additional loans of $10 billion, over a ten-year period. That money will be available because of cuts in transfer payments to provinces for post-secondary education.

Will the minister admit that the statement he made yesterday confirms his intention to transfer $10 billion from the federal debt to the students?

[Post-Secondary Education, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister says he has never made such claims, but this is what he wrote in his green book.

How can the minister remain so insensitive to the current problem of students getting into debt? Indeed, by triggering a twofold increase in tuition fees, his reform will result in heavier debt loads, to the point where many will no longer dare to pursue

the goal of a post-secondary education, for fear of incurring an uncontrollable personal debt.

[Post-Secondary Education, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The minister persists in denying the negative impact of his reform on Canadian students' indebtedness and on accessibility to post-secondary education. By cutting transfer payments to provinces for post-secondary education, his reform will have the effect of at least doubling tuition fees in the very first year, according to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.

How can the minister continue to claim that access to post-secondary education will not be reduced, considering the unprecedented increase in tuition fees triggered by his reform?

[Mil Davie Shipyard, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we learned today that the MIL Davie shipyard in Levis will lay off another 300 employees this Friday, so there will be only 400 workers left there.

The federal government is the one to blame for these layoffs. Its failure to act on the issue of the Magdalen Islands ferry clearly shows its lack of sensitivity with regards to unemployment in Quebec.

The Minister of Transport even delights in creating confusion about the case. We no longer know who is really in charge, him or the Minister of Industry. In 1986, the federal government told the Quebec shipyard industry to get its things in order, which was done. There is only one large shipyard left in Quebec. It is now Ottawa's turn to make an effort to ensure the survival and

development of MIL Davie, as it committed to do in the last election campaign.