Nic Leblanc

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Yes, for the other regions as well. It could have worked, but Meech was rejected.

Another debate followed after that. All kinds of debates took place with respect to the Charlottetown accord and committees held hearings. As you know, Charlottetown failed as well. Therefore, it is too late for us to reopen the debate on this subject because for us, the debate is closed.

Quebec conducted the most serious exercise in its history. The Bélanger-Campeau Commission received 600 briefs and heard testimony from 200 witnesses while at the same time, a special committee of experts held meetings. Once again, Quebec's leading experts concluded that if Quebec was to grow to its full potential and fight its way out of this economic crisis in which it was fast sinking along with the rest of Canada, it needed to gain control of approximately twenty areas. These are not my recommendations, but those of leading Quebec experts. Charlottetown also proved to be a rejection of this position.

Therefore, when the hon. member says we must continue to debate this issue, I say to him that as far as we are concerned, the subject is closed. We have now proceeded to the next phase, which is to achieve sovereignty for Quebec, not at the expense of the rest of Canada, but for the benefit of Quebec.

And so I agree with the Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs when he says that we must stop talking about this subject. He is right. As far as we are concerned, the time for talk is long over. We have moved on to the next phase.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the Leader of the Reform Party and to the Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs. One insists that we must reopen the debate, while the other says we should let the matter rest. The Secretary of State for Parliamentary Affairs says we should not talk about this subject any more and I agree with him because we have debated this matter long and hard since 1989. I have served in this Parliament since 1984 and we have been talking about this for a very long time.

You will undoubtedly recall, Mr. Speaker, that debates have taken place and two or three parliamentary commissions have been struck. There have been a whole series of seemingly endless debates, the end result of which was Meech. And Meech, as you know, did not work, in spite of the fact that it represented Quebec's minimum demands.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, you said this was a very important debate. I think you are absolutely right.

Just now I listened to the parliamentary secretary who said that since March 15, there had been very extensive debates during which people had plenty of time to express their views. He is right. There was a lot of debate and a lot of consultation in committee. This went on for a long time. We heard testimony from business and the unemployed. The committee even travelled across Canada to hear people's views. The government, however, failed to act on what it heard. And that is what is so unfortunate.

Today, we are told there was a lot of consultation, a lot of debate. Of course there was, but this afternoon they were saying there had been more than enough debate and that we had to vote on this bill as soon as possible. That is not playing fair. It is unfair and misleading to tell the public that there was a lot of consultation. Oh, yes, there was, but no one was listening. Recommendations were ignored, and that is the problem.

To Quebecers, these measures are quite a shock.

We have an unemployment rate of 12.6 per cent, while the Canadian average is 11 per cent. This means that there are 1.6 per cent more unemployed than in the rest of Canada.

It means we have more unemployment, and reducing the number of benefit weeks means reducing the amount of money the federal government invests in Quebec. This means it will be up to Quebec to support people when their unemployment insurance runs out, and Quebec will spend millions of dollars more as a result of this measure.

And that is also why we are in no hurry to pass a bill which has such a negative impact on Quebec. And another good reason is that the government keeps bragging about creating jobs, saying that if it creates jobs there will be less unemployment and that would solve part of the problem.

Unfortunately, so far, since it came into office, this government has not taken any action to indicate that it will reduce unemployment. It started by raising unemployment insurance premiums, since we are talking about unemployment today, and these premiums will cost companies and individuals about $800 million.

This means taking $800 million out of the pockets of consumers. It means people will have $800 million less to spend. If this is supposed to create jobs, the government is really out to lunch. It says it will inject about the same amount into its infrastructures program.

Infrastructures will be a three-year project, while unemployment insurance will be around for much longer. Which means that absolutely nothing has been accomplished. The number of jobs created by the infrastructures program will have zero impact as a result of the increase in unemployment insurance premiums.

Neither infrastructures nor unemployment insurance reform will in the end create more jobs. The government also intends to raise personal income tax by $1.5 billion over the next three years and will do the same in the case of corporate taxes. Altogether this means $3 billion, at a rate of $1 billion annually. One billion dollars in corporate and personal tax increases.

Here again, consumers will have $1 billion less to spend. And of course, most of this money will be used to pay interest to American, Japanese or European lenders. It will not be used to create jobs. It will not be used in Canada. This money will leave the country.

If the government expects to create jobs with the timid measures it has put in place, it is in for a surprise. There will definitely be no jobs created as a result of these measures.

If any jobs are created, they will be generated by small businesses which innovate and thus create jobs. So basically, the government has no long term vision.

The government is taking stopgap measures. Instead of resurfacing the entire road, it is merely filling up the potholes. It does the trick for a while, but it is lacking any real long- term vision.

These are merely bandaid solutions. They stop the bleeding momentarily, but do not attack the root of the problem. There are, of course, other well-known and obvious solutions to these fundamental problems, but the government continues to ignore them. It has its reasons, reasons with which the Bloc Quebecois disagrees.

The first reason is that the government is being told to be a centralizing government. It keeps on trying to take over manpower, health and education, whereas these fields come under provincial jurisdiction. Duplication is an extremely costly phenomenon. It is costly not only in dollar terms, but in terms of inefficiency. There is considerable lack of cohesion between the projects, programs and regulations of the provincial government-particularly the Quebec government with which I am most familiar-and those of the federal government. This lack of cohesion hinders operations and prevents small and medium-sized businesses from flourishing and expanding as much as they could.

Our businesses must have the opportunity to expand if jobs are to be created. That is how we must go about creating jobs, not by increasing UI premiums or by penalizing the jobless. One does not create employment by penalizing the jobless or social assistance recipients. One creates jobs by giving our small and medium-sized businesses what they need to flourish. And this government is doing exactly the opposite of that.

The folly of this Liberal government is its determination to be a centralizing government. It wants to control everything from Ottawa. That is crazy. Everyone knows that decentralization is the key to economic growth. Major corporations such as General Motors and Ford are experts at decentralization. They turn over responsibility to their plants and have them compete directly with one another. The federal government, on the other hand, wants to control everything. That is ridiculous and that is why Canada is heading toward bankruptcy.

Day after day, we are digging ourselves deeper and deeper into debt and everyone knows it. The business community and international investors know it. Where are investors putting their money today? They are investing it in the United States, in Europe, in Japan or in Asia. They are no longer investing on the same scale as they used to in Canada. Why is this? Because the economic climate is not beneficial. The basic employment problem is due to the fact that Canada does not handle its affairs in a way that benefits our businesses, so they leave the country. Finally, according to a Canadian Chamber of Commerce survey, 20 per cent of Canadian businesses are leaving or are about to leave Canada to move to the United States. That is tragic.

The government itself creates unemployment by stubbornly trying to manage everything from here. How can the federal government adopt national laws and regulations when Quebec's economic culture is totally different from that of Ontario, the Maritimes or Western Canada? To withstand international competition and freer trade, our businesses must become sophisticated competitors. To help them achieve this goal, we must stop hindering them as is now the case. Do not look any further, that is what is happening.

The government should invest a little more in technology and make more equitable choices. It gave Ontario $1.2 million more than Quebec for science and technology; that is what creates the most unemployment in Quebec. I made another very important discovery this week. According to a study, Ontario has 100,000 more federal public service jobs than Quebec. Again, this represents a very significant amount. Quebec has more unemployment than Ontario because it is very poorly served by the federal government. That is why we want Quebec to become sovereign.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has been speaking for the last five minutes about the way we deal with speeches, about the way we treated the people who came before the committee of the House of Commons.

He did not address the real issue, which is Bill C-17. I think he is wasting our time. He says that we are wasting our time, but in fact he is the one who is wasting our time.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

This puts a very heavy burden on companies and their employees, and I must say that reducing the number of weeks during which unemployment insurance benefits may be received will have a negative impact which will be very costly for the provinces, especially in Quebec.

Reducing the number of weeks during which people are entitled to unemployment insurance means that when they run out of benefits, and this will happen soon as a result of the government's proposal, they will have to go to Quebec's social assistance department for help.

It is estimated that in Quebec, another $500 million may be needed to help the unemployed when their unemployment insurance benefits run out.

In other words, the federal government has used this devious approach to pass its financial burden-the unemployed-onto the provinces. That is unfair, and irresponsible.

We see this happening in other sectors as well. For instance, when medicare was introduced, the provinces did not want the federal government to be involved in health care because it came under their jurisdiction. At the time, the federal government said: "Do not worry, we will establish national standards, we will control health care and introduce regulations, and of course we will also provide 50 per cent of the money required. We will collect the money from the public and give it back to the provinces-they did not say that, of course-and it will be a nice present for the provinces, because we will pay 50 per cent of health care expenses. But of course they never said the money would come out of taxpayers' pockets."

So the federal government took control of health care with its national Canadian health care policy. But today, the government pays only 30 per cent, not 50 per cent, and the provinces pay 70 per cent of their health care bills. And meanwhile, the federal government still insists it should oversee medicare.

More or less the same thing is happening in the case of unemployment insurance. In this case the approach is even more devious. The government says it will reduce the number of weeks during which people have access to benefits which means the provinces will have to take up the slack and ensure that these people can continue to eat and sleep and heat their homes in the winter, in this harsh climate of ours. This is outright hypocrisy.

The government also says it does a lot of consultation. It does, but it is not really listening. It does what it feels like doing. To consult usually means to listen to what people have to say, but the government does not listen. It does not respect their views. That is what their consultations amount to.

When the government decided to raise UI premiums, it said that it was gradually getting out of unemployment insurance programs, but since it was still paying, it also wanted to get involved in training as well. Since I will not have enough time to expand on this point, I will mention what happened and what I heard in committee during the past few years.

The Conseil du patronat and the unions said: Listen, if we as employers and employees have to pay most or all of the unemployment insurance premiums, why does the government continue to manage the program? The Conseil du patronat said, for instance: If we pay and the employee pays, why should we not be responsible for managing unemployment insurance?

For the benefit of our listeners, a distinction must be made between unemployment insurance and job training. The government has managed to confuse the issue, but basically, employees and employers pay about the same for unemployment insurance, while the remaining amounts go to job training. This is another example of federal interference. It takes the money contributed by companies and their employees to provide job training, although this should be strictly up to the provinces.

So, employers and employees say: "Look, we would be willing to administer this unemployment insurance corporation, since we are paying for it. This way, we would assume our responsibilities". The government would not make all kinds of unrealistic rules which often do not reflect real needs; employers and employees would administer the fund and probably have a more responsible attitude. Employees would not be dismissed without due cause, and neither would they resign on a whim. They would realize that acting this way would bring about an increase in unemployment insurance premiums.

I personally believe that people must be given more responsibility. They must be able to administer their own unemployment insurance program. It could provide a good example to have the unemployment insurance fund administered by employees and employers.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy today to say a few words about Bill C-17, the group of amendments proposed by the Reform Party and the way those amendments are being dealt with. I think that there are more than thirty of them. Of course, we have put about ten of them together and decided to vote on these ten amendments.

As far as I am concerned, I am in favour of some of those and against some others. Since I have to vote on a group of amendments, I find myself in a very awkward position.

That being said, I would like to talk briefly about unemployment insurance and the way this government treats our society. It is said to be a Crown corporation, but the government acts as if it was its own business. All of a sudden it decides to increase the unemployment insurance premiums, to reduce the benefit period and to increase the number of weeks that one has to work to be entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.

It is a hard blow on employers and employees who both have to pay higher premiums. At a time when recession is so hard on us, I wonder how the government can consider such a measure to be reasonable and responsible.

Madam Speaker, once again, and I am talking here only about employers, I realize that small and medium-sized businesses which will be burdened with this increase in premiums are still going to see their chances of success diminish-

[Official Languages, May 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is continuing to project abroad a totally biased image of the Canadian reality.

In an ad published by the Canadian embassy in Poland, the eligibility criteria stated for emigrating to Canada is knowledge of the English language. No a word about French, as if it was not even used in this country.

It is obvious that while on the one hand it is touting the virtues of Canadian federalism, on the other hand the government is telling foreigners that in Canada, English is the only official language.

This is one more reason why international relations should come under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec, only Quebec being capable of projecting abroad a realistic picture of its distinctiveness and reality.

[Supply, May 12th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I found it interesting when the hon. member for Berthier-Montcalm spoke about the Boscoville Institute. I would like him to say a little more about this institute which plays an important role in Quebec. It could serve as an example for the rest of Canada.

[Supply, May 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments about the remarks by the member for Pierrefonds-Dollard. I would also like to make a few comments, because I personally have the pleasure of having teenagers who say things sometimes that I find a little annoying, such as "You know, Dad, if I'm arrested, no problem. They won't do anything to me until I'm 18."

That reflects to a certain extent what young people are saying. They say that even if they do things that are wrong, the police cannot arrest them in any case or charge them, because they are minors. This is one of the aspects, when we talk about enforcement, as the member for Pierrefonds-Dollard mentioned, that I feel we should consider, in this respect in any case, without penalizing young people unduly. We should at least inform them of their responsibilities.

He also mentioned the fact that young people often behave the way they see adults behave. If we misbehave, chances are our children will do the same. In my opinion, we should maybe think a little about changing the laws as they apply to adults and the way in which adults are judged in order to create a better society and to ensure that our children can behave as well as possible when they have to accept responsibility. We should ensure that we adults set a good example.

We should also talk about violence on television. We should also talk about giving young people hope. As long as young people do not have any hope, they will more likely tend to give up on life, not really care and not show any respect for society. It is in this spirit that, in my opinion, we have to respect these young people who, basically, are not really guilty of these crimes. This does not mean that we have to let them do as they please, but I feel we have to be very open, as the law stipulates. I feel that we have to be very open-minded in the way in which we judge these young people.

I would like the member, since I have the opportunity to ask a question, to tell us what he thinks we could do to improve the way in which we mete out punishment to young people.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1994, April 14th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, this is part of my speech and it is also part of the budget. I wonder why the new business centre of the Canadian embassy in Mexico will be built by an American company. I think it is important to talk about this because, if we want to create jobs and reduce the deficit, we must help Canadian businesses to grow instead of asking foreign companies to build our embassies and offices abroad. I put this question to the Liberals listening to my speech today, so that they can ask the Minister of Foreign Affairs to look into it and ensure that Canadian businesses will be approached first when we have to build embassies and offices abroad.

Madam Speaker, I do not know who stole the notes I had in front of me but they are gone. Ah, I just found them.

First I must explain what a budget is. When a family decides to draw up a budget, it starts by calculating its income, just like the federal government must determine how much it collects in revenues. We know that our revenues amount to some $125 billion while our expenditures add up to about $160 billion.

We know that $40 billion go to pay interests on the accumulated debt. We know that; this is easy to figure out. What is more important in making a budget is to establish an order of priority for expenditures. How are we going to spend the money so as to improve our well-being. For example, a family may decide to first spend on a car, on rent, on clothes, on trips or on food. What proportion of our revenue are we going to spend in order to improve our lifestyle, respect our priorities and meet our needs?

It is in that sense that a government must look at its expenditures: It must ensure that spending is done in a way that best serves people, and it must ensure that these benefits are maintained. During the election campaign, it seemed to me, based on the red book, that the Liberals' priority was job creation. Even though we did not have the same vision regarding the country, we fully shared the Liberal's view on job creation.

However, we realized, once they took office, that the Liberals had completely changed their vision. For one thing, as several of my colleagues pointed out, they targeted the unemployed and overlooked manpower training. For five years now, Quebec has been saying that it must absolutely have jurisdiction over manpower training. Again, there is a unanimous motion before Quebec's National Assembly-a motion supported by both the Liberal Party of Quebec and the Official Opposition-asking that jurisdiction over manpower training be delegated to the province by the federal government. As you can see, this is an important issue.

When a government establishes its spending priorities, it should first look at manpower training on a budget level, since we are well aware that overlapping in that sector costs some 300 to 350 million dollars each year. Indeed, 300 to 350 million dollars are spent uselessly because of this overlapping in the manpower training sector. But the inefficiency related to this poor management and this overlapping is also very costly. The result is that we have people who get less training and who are less prepared to face the competition.

I also want to reply to the Reform Party member who made a speech this morning and said that Quebec is favoured in the Canadian federation. He said that we were receiving more than we were giving to Ottawa as regards unemployment insurance. I think the hon. member is partly right, but the question is: Do Quebeckers want to receive more money strictly to help those who are in trouble, or do they want to ensure that they are not in such trouble in the future? This is an important distinction, Madam Speaker.

We know very well that if we managed our own affairs in Quebec, we would recover several billion dollars through increased efficiency. This extra $800 million which the federal government suggests it is paying to Quebec does not mean anything, because this is in the context of the current management structure. The day we run our affairs alone, we will be much more efficient and we are convinced that we can reduce our unemployment more and we will not need that extra money because our economy will grow much faster.

Sometimes we in Quebec feel that the federal government wants Quebeckers to stay unemployed so that it can say that it is giving Quebec more money than Quebeckers pay. We almost feel that they are acting deliberately in a way to keep Que-beckers out of work more and more. So that is sort of an answer to the questions from Reform Party members, who are quite far

from Quebec. They do not seem to understand exactly what is going on in Quebec.

I must also say to the people in the Reform Party that maybe they should take a look at Quebec's economic structure.Quebeckers have had some successes these past few years, although they had to fight incoherent policies that hurt Quebec's development. Despite all that, Quebeckers set up some institutions. For example, on the economic level, we have set up mutual insurance companies, something quite extraordinary. We have the Caisse de dépôt, the Desjardins movement and its credit unions, the FTQ fund, the General Investment Corporation of Quebec. We built some amazing financial institutions.

Of course, every time the federal government changes the laws or regulations, it affects Quebeckers. If we Quebeckers were able to set our own budget priorities and make our own laws and regulations, we are sure that we could grow much faster and solve this unemployment problem that we have to live with and, again, be told by the federal government that we get a little more than we give, especially when it comes to unemployment and welfare.

You know that we Quebeckers have a lot more pride than that. We want to have the honour and the privilege of being able to develop and to earn our living honourably. For that, the only way to succeed is to collect all our own taxes and to make our own laws and in that way we can set our own priorities and develop as we should, Madam Speaker, and the way to do that is sovereignty for Quebec.