Antoine Dubé

[National Defence, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister a supplementary question regarding the MIL Davie shipyards. Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell us who in the government will be in charge of putting the case for the MIL Davie shipyards, one of the most important in Quebec, since the Minister of Finance, also responsible for regional development in Quebec, will not be in a position to uphold the campaign commitments of the Liberal Party due to his personal interests in marine transportation and to his reluctance to even talk about it to his Cabinet colleagues?

[National Defence, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. In a report on the defence choices that Canada must make in this post cold war period, a think tank called the Canada 21 council made some thirty recommendations on defence and security. It recommended among other things, that Canada builds three support ships for humanitarian aid and peacekeeping.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister commit herself today to implement this recommendation of Canada 21 and give the MIL Davie shipyards a mandate to develop the smart ship, a ship that could effectively support the Canadian contribution to peacekeeping?

[Business Of Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke and some of his colleagues touched on some quite particular aspects. We see that they each chose a subject in turn. In this case, it is illegal immigrants who commit murders while they are in Canada illegally.

The motion before us today concerns victims' rights, we must agree, but it is very, very general. I would just like to point out to the hon. member that a study, which I do not have on hand now, reports that about 80 per cent of the murders in Canada are committed by family members or someone in the victim's immediate circle. We must keep that in mind, because a very large majority of murders are committed in such circumstances. Knowing that, I think that we should deal again with the whole issue of the availability of firearms or other dangerous weapons that violent spouses or other persons in the victim's circle might use.

There is also another aspect. Murder is not the only crime, theft is another, but all studies show that such crimes are often related to poverty and social problems.

I would like to hear what the hon. member has to say on these two aspects in particular and not only about illegal immigrants, which he emphasized before, since all in all, crimes committed by illegal immigrants account for very little of the problem that we are talking about today.

[Business Of Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's comments. Her approach is very generous and her objectives noble. I know that she is not a Cabinet member, but I would appreciate it if she could elaborate on some comments she made concerning young people and prevention.

As the opposition's youth critic, I have a particular interest in this issue. Young people are often described as being a problem when, in fact, they are the human resources of the future. I believe it is very important to have programs, especially for first-time young offenders, to rehabilitate them, to help their social reintegration, so that they can become productive citizens.

I want to make a comment before the hon. member answers. I notice that, in spite of the observations made by government members in general, a whole slew of measures, such as legislation on young offenders, juvenile prostitution, etc., are announced by the government. Yet, when we ask why nothing is done, we are invariably told about how difficult it is to implement even existing legislation. There is nothing wrong with suggesting a new piece of legislation, and parliamentarians will certainly co-operate, but it is obvious that the government has some problems with implementation.

I now go back to my question, which is: What specific measures will the government take for prevention and rehabilitation?

[Youth Service Corps, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, over 400,000 young Quebecers and Canadians under the age of 25 are presently unemployed. To remedy this problem, this government intends to set up the youth service corps. But the first year, this new program will be available to only 2,500 young people, or 0.6 per cent of all the young unemployed.

Also, the youth service corps is similar to the old Katimavik program the Conservatives abolished in 1986 in that very few activities are directed to the labour market and allowances are paltry. How can one imagine that a young graduate can live on a mere $61 a week.

I submit that the federal government should review its plans with respect to young Canadians and consider putting into place a genuine employment program for them.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my answer might sound, to the hon. member's ears, like a repetition of what has already been said, but I believe that, at times, repetition is a good thing.

First, as far as job training is concerned, it is clearly established-and nobody denied the validity of the figures-that the elimination of all duplications would produce savings of $250 million in Quebec alone, which extrapolated for the whole country would mean a billion dollar saving. This is a first step.

The Bloc Quebecois never concealed the fact that it wanted cuts in military spending, but we were talking about administrative costs. In that sense we agree with several comments of your party. However, there is another question to consider, and that is unemployment among young people. Allowing young people with a university or college degree, and very often a heavy debt load, to be without a job paying decent wages, is denying the government revenues in the future, revenues that could help finance its spending program. More unemployed young people means more spending and less revenues. It is very important that we reflect on this and that we do it rather quickly.

Being unemployed is always traumatic, but for young people, studies have shown that failure to find employment related to the acquired knowledge or skills within two years can lead-and this is a widespread conclusion-to total despondency and erratic behaviour. This in turn could create serious social problems and significant expenses. So, we can expect more spending in the future and, primarily, people who will be unable to contribute to deficit reduction.

[The Budget, March 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to comment on the Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance on February 22.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources and as the Official Opposition critic for training and youth, I

think, Mr. Speaker, it is only appropriate that I should address the social impact of the Budget and especially the impact on the future of our youth.

I would like to start by discussing the proposed changes in the unemployment insurance plan, because I think that is where the Liberal government has been most remiss since it was elected. But is unemployment not our most pressing problem?

In 1989, one million Canadians were unemployed. In 1993, there were 1.6 million, an increase of 60 per cent. Unlike what the Liberals said when they were in the opposition and during the last election campaign, they are applying the same policies as the Conservatives, in other words, they would rather attack the unemployed than try to create jobs.

For instance, they decided to maintain the increases in unemployment insurance premiums proposed earlier by the Conservatives. Although yesterday during Question Period, the Minister of Finance admitted this did not make sense, he will not make any changes for another year, apparently hoping that the social program reforms being discussed today will provide the necessary funding to create 40,000 new jobs next year.

Why not do it this year? After all, the government had no qualms about cancelling the helicopter contract and backtracking on the privatization of Pearson airport. Freezing unemployment insurance premiums last January would have been easier than rolling them back a year from now.

Generally speaking, the changes in the unemployment insurance program will mean that people will have to work longer to be eligible for lower benefits received for a shorter period of time.

A study by professors at the department of economics of the University of Québec in Montreal shows that more than half of the cutbacks announced in the latest federal budget will be at the expense of Canada's unemployed.

By introducing different benefit levels, the government is dividing the unemployed into two categories: low income unemployed people with dependants and the others. To justify its decision, the government cites a supposed notion of equity, when instead it is a breach of the universality principle which has been the cornerstone of our social programs since the beginning. It amounts to discrimination based on family status.

For example, what will happen to equity when both spouses are unemployed? Which one will be entitled to higher benefits? Time does not allow me to give more examples, but there are a lot more. With more diversified eligibility standards, it will become increasingly necessary to monitor claims. After the boubous macoutes we have seen in Quebec, are we going to have Martin macoutes and Axworthy macoutes?

Another one of the perverse effects of UI reform is the fact that it passes the buck to the provinces. By reducing the duration of benefits and delaying eligibility, in a time of high unemployment, this reform will push more people onto welfare, which will mean more expenses for the provinces and a loss of dignity for individuals.

Furthermore, a greater number of persons who want to participate in various training programs will be disqualified because, as you know, most of the federal training programs are now intended for UI recipients.

On the other hand, if the benefit period is shortened, unemployment insurance reform will lead some people to accept insecure, often low-paying jobs bearing no relationship whatsoever with their skills. By forcing them to accept low-paying jobs just to survive, we are preventing these people from seeking more appropriate employment.

Is that this government's new philosophy on human resource development? Being unemployed often pushes people into insecure, precarious jobs. The proposed reform affects honest workers who are actively looking for work and who have a hard time finding a permanent job because of the present economic situation.

Several studies have shown that more than 90 per cent of the unemployed have lost their jobs through no fault of their own or are looking for their first job. Most of them have no control over the duration of that job. The problem is not that the unemployed do not want to work, but rather that there is not enough work for everyone.

I also want to mention some statistics regarding our young people, such as the fact that 17.5 per cent of young Canadians and 20 per cent of young Quebecers are currently unemployed, for a total of more than 600,000 individuals. In Canada as well as in Quebec, the drop-out rate in high schools is around 30 per cent. According to a report published by the Conseil permanent de la jeunesse du Québec, close to 40 per cent of young Quebecers live in poverty. Across the country, there are two million young people under 30 who live below the poverty level.

Yet, in its budget, the federal government offers nothing really new to young people. The Youth Service Corps, which was widely publicized in the red book, seems to be the only government initiative for our young. Some meetings took place in December and in January, but a report has yet to be released.

According to the most recent information, that is according to copies which were circulated when those consultations took place, the Youth Service Corps would only include 2,500 young people the first year, 5,000 the second year, and 10,000 after three years. Is that an adequate measure, considering that there are 600,000 young unemployed in Canada? We do not think so.

Moreover, it seems that young people participating in this program would only receive $61 a week if they still live at home, and $121 otherwise. Ask yourself this question: Would you accept such an arrangement for your own children who are old enough to work?

To make things even worse, the Youth Service Corps seems, for the time being, more geared to occupational activities, with no direct link to the labour market, as was the case with the Katimavik project abolished by the Conservatives in 1986.

So far, all the organizations dedicated to helping young people which have been heard by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development have said that when young people leave school they need practical and relevant experience to find real jobs. The federal government would be well advised to increase its financial support to existing organizations instead of creating another structure such as the Youth Service Corps.

Since I sit on the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, I would like to conclude by relating what I have heard over the last few weeks from various groups and individuals during our public hearings on social programs reform. What has struck me so far is that the majority do not seem to be in favour of a reduction of resources, quite the contrary. Other trends are also evident. There is fairly widespread support for a major decentralization of the management of social programs and for greater involvement of local communities.

Also, it is increasingly obvious in this consultation that there are two social realities in Canada and two expectations with respect to the federal government.

Some groups in English Canada want a greater federal presence in social security and even more national standards; on the other hand, Quebec groups and organizations in general have a completely different vision. They turn more to the Government of Quebec. But the most significant trend with all groups is deep concern about employment. Obviously, we must bring together all available resources and target all our efforts to increasing the number of jobs.

[Mil Davie Shipyards, March 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last week I took part in a truly exceptional event, namely the founding of a coalition of the main political parties in the federal riding of Lévis and the provincial ridings of Lévis and Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. The coalition, which was established to promote a business plan for MIL Davie shipyards, is composed, at the provincial level, of representatives of the Parti québécois and of the Quebec Liberal Party and, at the federal level, of representatives of the Bloc Quebecois, of course, the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party and even the Liberal Party of Canada.

The members of this coalition are calling on the federal government to move quickly in awarding the contract for the building of a ferry to provide service between the Magdalen Islands and the mainland to MIL Davie and to give priority consideration to the development of a prototype vessel, commonly referred to as a smart ship, so that this company can weather the transition period until such time as commercial shipbuilding picks up again.

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would to start by making a comment. The hon. member mentioned that one of the provisions in this bill raises the legal age for purchasing cigarettes from 16 to 18 years of age. I simply want to point out that this measure was contained in Bill C-111 which was passed last year. However, the legislation only takes effect this year.

The hon. member did, however, raise some interesting questions about enforcement measures to control the sale of tobacco products. At one point, he said did not know how we would stop this illegal trade going on and what it would cost to carry out that enforcement. Therefore, I would like to send the question back to him and ask him to explain a little more how far his government intends to go in enforcing these measures?

[Excise Act, February 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Minister of National Health and Welfare as I do every time she answers questions in the House about smoking.

Here again, the minister means well with these measures to prevent smoking, but as I said during my speech, the Official Opposition is somewhat apprehensive about the enforcement of these measures. You referred to the cost of so-called kiddie packs-packages containing fewer than 20 cigarettes-which will now be prohibited. I think we should remember that because taxes have been cut, in Quebec at least, the price has gone down considerably, so that today, a pack of fewer than 20 cigarettes is much cheaper. In fact, a pack of more than 20 cigarettes is now cheaper than a pack of 15 cigarettes used to be. In other words, cost is an important factor.

I would appreciate it if the minister could give us her thoughts about this and whether she thinks this aspect was properly evaluated, because there has been a drop in the cost of a pack of cigarettes. We know that people who smoke more than 20 cigarettes a day are considered to be heavy smokers, which is very dangerous to one's health.

The minister mentioned new inspectors. I wish she would specify, if she is in a position to do so today, the number of new inspectors to which she is committed and what this will cost. As for the fines, I do not think they are all that severe. It all depends on the offence and the extent of the offence. I would like to tell you a story about the legislation to prohibits smoking in government buildings.

At the CBC there was a massive operation to enforce the new legislation as soon as the rule came into effect. The amount that people were fined added up to a considerable amount of money, and when employees protested, it all ended without anyone paying fines.

My point is that when the government decides to enforce this legislation, I hope it will do so fairly and squarely across Canada and will have the requisite number of inspectors to do so. We also have to provide for cases where one will not be able to count on the co-operation of provincial or other police forces. We will need a lot of inspectors to cover the territory involved. I am not so sure they will be able to do that. There is also the risk of partial enforcement.

I mentioned what happened at the CBC, but it could happen in any other company or community, when all of a sudden individuals are fined and notice that meanwhile, people somewhere else can continue to smoke with impunity, and I am thinking of young people particularly. This may produce a sense of injustice, of being picked on while other people can go on breaking the law without being penalized.

I would appreciate the minister's views on the subject.