Jean-Paul Marchand

[Francophones Outside Quebec, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, of the 1,000,000 francophones outside Quebec who declared French as their mother tongue, only 640,000 still speak French at home. Despite this very alarming situation, the commissioner of official languages has just released an annual report claiming, on the contrary, that considerable progress has been made in the use of French outside Quebec.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. How can the commissioner of official languages table such a rosy report, when for 18 months he has been releasing reports that totally contradict what he said today? What extraordinary event has happened since then to cause such an about-face on the part of the commissioner?

[Francophones Outside Quebec, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government has interfered in provincial matters frequently and on a number of issues, but the minister is denying the assimilation of francophones in Canada in her response, and no one dare deny this assimilation when it is occurring at the rate of 30 per cent in the Canada's capital.

We must have francophone schools, but Sainte-Anne is closing. It is a fact that English predominates in the federal public service. Francophones must use English in the public service.

Will the minister acknowledge that her government is therefore practicing a policy of assimilation leading to the disappearance of the francophone community in the heart of the nation's capital?

[Francophones Outside Quebec, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as the government denies the endemic assimilation of francophones outside Quebec, the future of four francophone schools in Ottawa is at stake for lack of students. They include the école Sainte-Anne, the last remaining francophone primary school in Lower Town, a francophone bastion in Canada's capital.

My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. When will the minister stop denying the problem of the assimilation of francophones in Canada, which leads to the disappearance of their most vital institutions, such as the last primary school in Lower Town?

[Official Languages, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in an issue of Entre parenthèses , Impératif français reminds us that in the federal government, English is the real working language.

It says that 22.8 per cent of management positions are held by francophones whereas 32.8 per cent of support positions are filled by francophones. In other words, the higher you go on the salary scale, the less room there is for francophones.

Impératif français also points out that the federal government is more bilingual in Quebec. While the English minority in Quebec forms only 10 per cent of the population, 52.7 per cent of positions in the federal public service are bilingual.

Moreover, according to the most recent statistics issued by the Treasury Board, in 1994-95, 88 per cent of translation done in the federal government was from English into French, or roughly the same proportion as 10 years ago. Impératif français is quite right: in Canada, 25 years after the coming into force of the Official Languages Act, English is more official than French.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I can answer. First, I wish to thank the hon. member for his question.

The problem that I was discussing before concerned the banks, and how we could prevent them from getting more powerful. General Motors Acceptance Corporation and Ford Motors Credit are American investment agencies. These companies are exactly like banks. In the U.S. today, Ford Motors is the sixth biggest financial institution.

If the hon. member makes a small verbal distinction between Ford Motors and GM, I do not think it matters, especially since they are American companies.

In my opinion, in Canada, we should crack down a little harder on the banks, but not on companies, like car dealerships, that provide jobs and make a profit. Why amend legislation once again to benefit banks, at the expense of those in the automobile industry who have a hard time making ends meet? Life is not always easy. Unlike banks, car dealers do not pocket profits of $5.2 billion, year in year out. This is definitely not the case.

I hope that answers the hon. member's question. If I had more time, I could elaborate on that social concept. There is a difference. The question was put by a member who is indeed a francophone. This lack of social concept within the federal government may reflect a difference in the English Canadian perception, versus the French Canadian one.

In Quebec, the concept of distinct society implies a social policy. We have a social policy, and I challenge anyone in this House to claim that, in Quebec, we favour the banks. This is absolutely not the case. We will never favour the banks in Quebec. We treat them fairly, but we also ask them to contribute to the province's financial and economic recovery.

The federal government does not do that. This is a big difference in terms of social policy. This is not the way things are done in our province. As you know, the caisses Desjardins were established in Quebec and they are very successful. These institutions provide extensive quality services without making exorbitant profits like the banks.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

That is right, last year, they made $5.2 billion in profits. They certainly are not poor. They are charging almost 20 per cent in interest on credit card balances. It takes some doing. That is incredible. As rich as they are, banks are doing what they can to become even richer.

Recently, the Liberal government denied banks access to the insurance sector. I must admit that they were served a warning. Perhaps their next request will be granted, like automobile leasing for example, which is extremely profitable. Perhaps the Liberal government will decide to give them a nice little present.

Of course it is in the best interest of this government that the six federally chartered banks make huge profits. It is well known that they do make profits. They are doing well and the government will make sure that they can expand into other areas.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

The government needs a lot of detailed explanation, which is what I am trying to do.

Young people are facing an increasingly difficult situation, because it is so expensive to go to university to get the education required to find a job. It is already difficult enough just to get a diploma, without facing the prospect of not having any job opportunities upon graduating. This demoralizes young people and causes them to drop out of school in growing numbers.

Both the young and the old are affected, as well as the sick, the most vulnerable, and women. Everyone is affected by the measures taken by this government because, as I said, there is no social policy in any way, shape or form. That is incredible. Instead of running the country as it should, the government is sitting on its power and letting itself be led by rich individuals, corporations and banks, in spite of the fact that, in a former life, when in opposition, the Liberal Party found much fault with banks, accusing them of ruining the economy.

A few years ago, as incredible as it may sound, the Prime Minister, who was the leader of the opposition then, warned: "When I become the Prime Minister, you can be sure you will have to pay your share." That is more or less what he told banks. And he was right.

Today, banks are charging-

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Champlain, who in fact is paid to do this job. All joking aside, there is nothing funny about part time jobs. The schedule that the government was using before to give out unemployment insurance was based on the number of weeks worked, while it is now based on the number of hours worked. But in some cases, we could consider that the number of hours required to qualify for unemployment insurance has tripled. A person must work three times as much, at least twice as much, to qualify for unemployment insurance.

So, people who have part time jobs, especially fishermen, seasonal workers, young people who have jobs or jobs at McDonald's, for instance, and many other people will be in a situation where they will have to contribute to the unemployment fund, but they will not be eligible for benefits. That is what is happening. That is another example of the blatant unfairness the government is creating with this bill.

We can hope that the government will make changes, but I do not know if cosmetic changes will do when deep down the whole thing is rotten. It is like cancer. For a person who already has cancer, if we cut off one of his arms or add on a finger, we give him some support, but it is still difficult to give him his health back. Essentially, this bill sponsored by the Department of Human Resources Development should be thrown out. We ought to rethink this bill's whole approach.

In fact, it is not just this bill. This reflects the whole mentality of the Liberal government, its social and economic policies. On that, I must say that except for a minor initiative of a few million of dollars at the beginning of its mandate in 1993, under the infrastructure program which, as my colleague from Champlain knows, created jobs, and was a good initiative, the government has done nothing to create jobs, absolutely nothing.

The Liberals did nothing but get what my other colleague on my right described a few moments ago as a case of "verbal diarrhea".

The government suffers from a big case of verbal diarrhoea. Its members are the ones standing in this illustrious hall, giving us all kinds of theories and explanations on how well they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, as my time has almost expired, I want to thank again my colleague from Champlain for allowing me to speak for another five minutes.

Nevertheless, I wanted to be sure to underline something I find important. In Canada and in Quebec, people must be made aware of the situation, because this is no laughing matter. It is not something without importance. When we talk about unemployment insurance and employment, youth training, health and pensions in a society, or when we talk about a government which has nothing to offer to stimulate job creation, thse are not trifling matters. Today, millions of people are affected. The worst will come in a few months. That is why people are not really aware of this bill's impact. They are not aware of the full impact of this bill, which will come into effect in the next few months.

We are still waiting, but these are extremely serious measures that will affect many people. Once again, this bill reflects the government's unfair attitude. The greatest injustice that can be imagined, that has been condemned since the beginning of human history, is precisely this kind of injustice favouring the rich, the establishment of programs or projects allowing those better off to feather their nests and fill up their pockets, while the poor and vulnerable are ignored, denigrated and robbed. It is indeed in this case a kind of fraud, a kind of misappropriation. Many of the workers who contribute to the UI fund will not even qualify for benefits. It is robbery, to a certain extent.

Young people starting out may be the most vulnerable of all because, as you know, finding a job and carving out a career nowadays is not the same as when I was young. I am 52 years old. When I was a student in my twenties, jobs were not that hard to find. I am-

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-11, which is so important, and

particularly pleased to follow my two illustrious colleagues for Lévis and Châteauguay. Bill C-11, as you know, is more or less a housekeeping bill, in that it is aimed at creating the new Department of Human Resources Development, which is a fairly weighty component of the federal government.

This bill will, of course, be passed. We are discussing it, and discussing it a great deal, because there are a number of highly negative aspects connected to it which we want to point out. Yet we know it will go through, because the federal government has the majority. If, however, it were in my power to prevent the department from being created, of course I would do so, because to date this department has provided the most glaring example of abuse by the federal government.

The Department of Human Resources Development has, perhaps, wrought more havoc on Canada as far as social programs are concerned, than all of the other departments combined. It is the one which sends so many people to my office in a terrible situation, worried about their future, their job, their unemployment insurance. And it is not finished with its mischief, either, for this department is the one they want to use to more or less solve one of Canada's most serious problems.

As you know, Canada has a huge debt, one that has been denounced by the International Monetary Fund on several occasions, and one that places Canada in the ranks of the most indebted countries in the world. In fact, looking at the G-7 membership, Canada is second only to Italy. Canada is in a financial crisis, a debt crisis, in fact it is technically bankrupt. Canada's $550 billion debt is a big problem. A very big problem, one that was created by the incompetence of certain members of this House, before our time of course.

Previous governments have all been so irresponsible in their spending, especially since the arrival of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and Brian Mulroney later on. When Trudeau came along, Canada's debt was a small one. You might say it was reasonably manageable, one which did not worry foreign investors or harm Canada's economic development. Then it went up to $250 billion, and doubled that under Mulroney. The present Liberal government is, of course, attempting to curb it, but without any appreciable success.

They talk of success, but we know very well that the $5 billion reduction in Canada's deficit was made at the expense of Canada's workers and employers, and at the expense of the unemployed. It is, as we know full well, in this Department of Human Resources Development that this kind of misappropriation of funds, what I would call a kind of fraud, a kind of lie perpetuated in Canada, is planned.

The money in the UI fund comes from Canadian employers and employees; the federal government has not contributed a single penny since 1990. This fund comes from a tax on employers and employees, who are the sole contributors. The federal government then takes $5 billion from this fund to reduce its deficit.

It is in short what happened with the Department of Human Resources Development and all other federal policies. It is the only major bill this government managed to come up with and it will pass. I am sure this bill will pass because government members are in the majority. It is essentially the key bill that this government put forward through the Department of Human Resources Development.

Of course, we can also talk about the reduction of transfer payments to the provinces, in that the government may cut spending on health and education programs by $7 billion by the year 2000. These cuts put pressure on the provinces. These cuts in transfer payments have forced the provinces to adjust, as Quebec is now doing.

It has even become necessary in the area of health care, as we know full well. But I wonder about education. I wonder if this government really has lofty designs on society in trying to reduce its contribution to education. This threatens the future of our young people, who these days need a good education in order to find jobs and make ends meet.

Through the Department of Human Resources Development, the federal government has taken measures such as reducing spending in health and education by cutting transfers to the provinces. The federal government tried to shift these cuts to the provinces to make them take the blame, and then misappropriated money from the UI fund. The fact is that, over three years, something like $15 billion will be diverted.

Then the Minister of Finance will say: "I managed to reduce the federal debt." I mean by that that he will at least have reduced the deficit and discharged his duty to the people of Canada.

As I said earlier, this is misappropriation of funds, nearly embezzlement, because contributions to an insurance program are normally expected to be used for that purpose and not for some other purpose. Normally, employees and employers who contribute to the UI fund should expect their money to be used to make sure that those who loose their jobs are paid benefits out of the UI fund and provided with manpower training so that they can re-enter the labour force.

But that is not how it was used. Not only does the government use this money to reduce its debt, but it also tightened UI eligibility requirements, thereby effectively reducing the number of people who qualify for UI benefits. Imagine that. Do you think that is fair? More and more frequently, participating employers are seeing their UI claims denied.

This government has brought down three consecutive reforms. First, the number of eligible claimants was reduced to about 60, 57, 55 per cent. Then, the second reform further reduced this

percentage to about 47 or 45 per cent. This means that 47 or 45 per cent of those who lose their jobs are entitled to UI.

Now with the latest reform, the most drastic and unfair one conceivable in Canada, only one third of people losing their job will be entitled to UI. This is a fraud, this is embezzlement. If only the number of people losing their job remained the same, and eligibility criteria were such that more people could be on UI. But this is not the case. Fewer and fewer people will be eligible.

Not only will there be fewer people eligible, but they will receive smaller benefits for a shorter period of time. This is marvellous, magical, because of course according to statistics there will be fewer and fewer unemployed workers in Canada since, when you are no longer eligible for UI, have no job and are not entitled to UI, and there is no other recourse, what do you do? You go on welfare. Welfare is a different kind of system, it is a provincial system. If one is not eligible for welfare, one disappears from the face of the earth, one becomes invisible.

From the federal perspective, this is marvellous, it is as if the unemployment rate was going down in Canada. This is marvellous. Through various tricks, statistics and funds, the problem created in the first place by the federal government and its disastrous overspending over the last 10 years is being dumped on the provinces. Provinces will now have to support more people on welfare.

Access to the unemployment insurance fund will be more limited and, moreover, provinces will be faced with cuts in the most important areas, the most vulnerable like health and education, and now, with the new Department of Human Resources Development, pensions. They are now going after our seniors, because they have been spared until now. The reform of old age pensions will primarily target women, since the pension will be determined based on family income.

This means that the woman who stayed home all her life to raise a family, who did not have any form of employment recognized by society, because she was a housewife, might not have the right to an old age pension. She will continue to be dependent on her husband. This way, the federal government will save billions of dollars at the expense of the most vulnerable people of society: the young, the sick, the old and the unemployed.

This is what the Liberal government is doing to Canada. It is going after the most vulnerable. It is going after those who are poorly organized, insecure and focus on surviving from one week to the next.

People come to my office, single women with two, three children, who are without a job and have a really hard time surviving on welfare. They want to work.

If you allow the federal government to use the money from the unemployment insurance fund to reduce the debt rather than investing into job creation or manpower training, this is what we will get. More and more people will know hardship and suffering. This is what the federal government will give us. This a rotten government.

Mr. Speaker, I am not referring to you directly, but the government's social policy is totally rotten and unfair. It is a fraud, a misappropriation of funds. It is so rotten. One cannot imagine a worse social program, given that the root of the problem is the huge national debt of $550 billion, which concerns the International Monetary Fund and which will soon exceed $600 billion, in the year 2000.

When you think about the problems that triggered the initiatives taken by the human resources development department, you realize that there were other, easier, more reasonable and fair solutions to solve the issues. But the government deliberately chose to target young people, the sick, the elderly and the unemployed.

Who was spared? Who was spared in every possible way? The rich, the well-to-do and the large corporations. The government was generous to them. It is that simple.

Let me just give you a few examples. Take the all-important family trust issue. For those who do not know how family trusts work, you first have to be a millionaire. Family trusts are not for everyone: it is a very select club. One has to be very rich, like the Minister of Finance, who is worth several million, or like the Reitman, the Bronfman and all the other very rich families. So, you must first be rich to join the select group benefiting from family trusts.

It costs a lot of money to set up the program that allows these families, through a family trust, to avoid having to pay taxes. These families never pay taxes. This is great. They make millions in profits each year, but they do not pay taxes. This is truly wonderful.

It is estimated that, in Canada, thanks to these family trusts, about $100 billion are not subject to any taxes. One hundred billion dollars in profits there wealthy families make in Canada. If I were the Prime Minister, I would go and get at least half of these $100 billion. There are thousands of people who are hungry, who have no jobs and who do not have enough to feed their children. Consequently, when you have rich people who do not know what to do with their $50 million, you go and tell them: "Listen, not only have you not paid taxes on your profits for X number of years, but you have $100 billion in family trusts. Therefore, we will collect half of that amount, that is $50 billion".

Imagine, only with this fair, reasonable and justifiable measure, the government could have collected $50 billion more in taxes.

However, it chose not to take $50 billion from the family trusts, but rather $5 billion from the unemployed.

This government spared the wealthiest families. It even warned them to reconsider their finances, because in five or six years from now, it may have to change the conditions applying to family trusts.

The government could have gotten more money from corporations who avoid paying taxes. An estimated $3 to $4 billion go to banks in the Bahamas and the West Indies. An estimated $4 billion a year, from what I have heard.

The government could have closed the tax loopholes used by corporations. It could have taxed the banks. Imagine, last year alone, banks pocketed $5.2 billion in net profits. Shareholders took all that money home with them. The banks' profits almost doubled from the previous year. We are not talking peanuts here. The government collected about $100 million from the banks over a two-year period. That is a little under one per cent. That is not much for banks.

All that to say that this government is rotten to the core. It does not have a social policy, it promotes a policy based on the best interests of the fittest and the richest and it picks on the most vulnerable people of all, the weakest, the young, the old and the sick. Come next election, I hope the people will realize that we need a change of government.

[The Budget, April 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should have spoken English, because I do not seem to make myself understood in French. Of course it is obvious. You would have to be nearly blind not to recognize that the government is using the money from the unemployment insurance fund fraudulently. In other words, this money is not being used for unemployment insurance but for federal deficit reduction. It is a fraud. It is dishonest-there is no other way to put it.

When they say, as my colleague has just pointed out, that the Bloc has not proposed practical measures to reduce the deficit, I would point out that, on the matter of family trusts, the Bloc suggested they simply be abolished. Some $100 billion is in family trusts in Canada. This money is not taxed. It is set aside for the wealthiest families, the super rich, which includes the Minister of Finance. That was one of the suggestions we made. In fact, I made eight this morning the government has not acted on.

So, the hon. member's repeating the Liberal government's harebrained, hypocritical and dishonest ideology does not stop me from seeing clearly that unemployment insurance funds are being used fraudulently and that the Liberal government has neither the backbone nor the guts to resolve its finances as it could have done had it really wanted to.