Nic Leblanc

[Supply, June 13th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to say that English Canada is misinformed, and especially the hon. member, in thinking that there is a French language police in Quebec. There is no language police. We have the Office de la langue française to protect French.

What English Canada must understand is that the situations of anglophones and francophones are not comparable. We francophones live in an anglophone continent, we need protection, we have to look after ourselves or we will quickly disappear. This is why the Government of Quebec set up the Office de la langue française and appointed a large number of people to give the French language its due.

We also know that immigrants coming to Quebec tend, and probably legitimately so, to learn English when they arrive on an English continent, because Canada's embassies abroad tell them that Canada is an English country. Often they do not say there are francophones in Canada.

They come here and then, and I understand them, learning one language is difficult enough, learning two is even harder. So they choose a language, because according to the rules of the federal government, immigrants choose themselves the language they think they will most easily master. Obviously, immigrants choose the English language because they think: "I am on a continent where people speak English, therefore I choose the English language".

In Quebec, we are stuck once again with federal rules that prevent us from promoting French. If we were to say that the only language you can learn in Quebec is French, when the federal government pays for language training in Quebec, it should only pay for French class. But immigrants are the ones who choose which language they think is the best to help them succeed. So we will do what it takes to make sure that there are still francophones in Quebec.

In spite of all our efforts, we realize that in Montreal-West, for instance, immigrants speak English mostly. In spite of all our efforts, we cannot even manage to maintain the level of French nor get people to speak French.

This is why I am telling the member he has a very bad grasp of things. What he just said does not help to understand Quebec's reality. Members from the west and Ontario should come and see the situation in Quebec before criticizing it, and giving speeches that have nothing in common with reality. They are the ones who are making matters worse. This is what I wanted to say in response to his speech.

I suggest that he study history a little bit better and not make such speeches. He said our speeches are bad, but he should understand better what the needs of Quebec are, and try to understand why Quebecers need the Office de la langue française to protect the French language in Quebec.

This is not the subject of our debate today, we are talking about francophones outside Quebec, but since he mentioned it, I wanted to set the record straight. It is important to give speeches reflecting Quebec's reality so that English Canada, mainly people in the west, really understand the situation of Quebecers. I caution him about that and I ask him from now on to give speeches that are a truer reflection of reality.

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26, and particularly to Motion No. 7. This bill does not mention participation by the provinces. We know that the oceans are a vast natural resource over which the Government of Quebec would do well to have a say.

In the past, we saw a fairly obvious inequity concerning fishing rights, for example. We also saw a fairly obvious inequity when the federal government decided unilaterally to develop petroleum resources through the great Hibernia project. Without the consent of Quebec, it was decided to develop the petroleum near Newfoundland, by saying that this would help Newfoundland, that this was a project to develop the eastern regions.

We in Quebec were flatly opposed, because we knew in advance that Hibernia would be a project with almost no benefits for Quebec. Quebec would certainly have refused to subsidize the big Hibernia project. We know full well that Hibernia will cost Quebecers the pretty sum of two or three billion dollars, while the benefits will certainly not exceed a few hundred million. And Quebec was not consulted about this project.

Once again, I would like to say that I support the motion by my colleague, the member for Gaspé, who is asking that the provinces be given a right of review, that they at least be informed of what is ahead. At the present time, we have no information. The federal government, as usual, is charging in and deciding unilaterally to get involved in large projects without consulting the provinces. Quebec is often penalized by these federal projects. There is no warning.

I remember very clearly, I was here in the House when they decided to launch the Hibernia project. I was an independent at that time, we were a small group of eight independents. We learned on the Friday morning that the Liberals, the Conservatives, and the NDP, a large contingent at that time, had decided unilaterally to introduce the bill on a Friday morning on the sly, to avoid discussion.

Now, myself and my colleague for Richelieu learned about it on the Friday morning and came to the House to contest it, knowing full well that it was contrary to Quebec's interests. We were the only party-not even a party-but as you know, when there are major regional projects involved that are favoured by the federal government, things are too easy. The big three national parties always join forces and the thing is slipped through quietly. And who gets it in the neck? The provinces.

Here I am not speaking just for Quebec. I think that British Columbia, with its extensive coastline, ought also to have been entitled to be consulted and informed, at least before the federal government acts in the key areas affecting the oceans. As I have already said, the oceans are a repository of great wealth, and the provinces absolutely must be consulted to ensure that they may take part in various ways to ensure that we agree, or in a few cases

at least refuse, to become involved in projects when we know they will never be to our advantage.

When we as Quebecers talk of fairness, we are not asking for charity, just fairness. We are not looking for handouts, we want to participate and to benefit, like good citizens, to have our fair share. It is not right for Quebec, one of the most industrialized provinces in Canada, to have the highest rate of unemployment and welfare, at the moment. That should not be.

It is happening today because something was not working in the federal system. We are not talking about handouts, just fairness. We are talking about being part of the major projects so that we may benefit from them, no more than any other province, but at least as much as the other provinces.

The ultimate proof lies always in the results. They are the indicator of success or failure. If we in Quebec have more welfare and unemployment than the other provinces, except the small maritime provinces, it is because we have lost out in a way, and not in terms of handouts. We are not expecting handouts or charity. We simply want to be part of the major projects that are to our advantage and benefit properly from them and not to be part of those to our disadvantage, as much as possible. This is why I rise to inform Quebecers that the federal government is yet again trying to pull the wool over our eyes by excluding Quebec from the debate on regulating the oceans.

Once again, I repeat, this is not nothing. The oceans contain extraordinary riches, and Quebec must absolutely have a say in the decisions.

[Supply, May 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the member say that it was time the west stopped making sacrifices for Quebec. I would like to point out to him that Quebec made sacrifices for at least 75 years to develop western Canada. He should perhaps remember his history. We paid for the railways, the St. Lawrence Seaway, and so on.

The hon. member belongs to the Reform Party, a party that supposedly wants to reform the British parliamentary system, to improve things. I am partly in agreement with that. I think some changes are required in the British parliamentary system.

It is still somewhat worrisome to see polls showing that barely 14 per cent of Canadians still trust parliamentarians. It is an important question that must be asked, and I think the Reform Party is right to want to make changes with respect to the British parliamentary system, I grant it that.

The principal method they have chosen, which, in my view, is a good method, is the free vote. In the last few election campaigns, we have seen that governments make promises, they have platforms, they try to please the public with these platforms and these promises, and they win elections on them.

What we are noticing is that, after the election, and this is what the motion presented today by the Reform Party is all about, after getting elected, most of the time the government does exactly the opposite. Unfortunately, as government members have to vote along party lines, the government does pretty much as it pleases.

If members had the possibility of a free vote, governments elected on the strength of promises and platforms would have to deliver on them. I know that the majority of government members are often not in agreement with the government. They often feel a bit dishonest voting against the very issues that led them to run for office.

When I ran for the Conservatives in 1984, I had looked at the Conservative platform and felt that it was the best match with my aspirations. It is very important for me to be able to continue to promote the aspirations which I have and which I have undertaken to promote with the party for which I ran.

I find there is a major flaw in the British parliamentary system, and this is it: the Prime Minister has so much power, has all the power. He has the power to appoint ministers, parliamentary secretaries, committee chairs indirectly, so most of the time he is involved in blackmail, rewarding or punishing his MPs. This creates a system which, when it comes down to it, does not match the public's perception of their MPs. That is one of the reasons for MPs' very low popularity; 14 per cent of the population believe in their credibility.

As parliamentarians we should be counteracting that. I am asking the Reform Party, which has set out to reform the parliamentary system, to go still further. Each time the members of that party vote, they should point out that they are voting freely. If there are two, three, four, five MPs who vote nay, great. Vote against, if you are not in agreement. This parliamentary system must be reformed, slowly of course, but it must be done so that one day some of the public trust will be regained. Otherwise, the parliamentary system will end up being unacceptable; people will no longer believe in us. They barely do now.

I am anxious to see that day come. I know that parliamentary systems cannot be changed over night. I know that it takes a fair amount of time to change old habits, but I hope that the Reform Party will put a great deal of stress on this and will make MPs both more responsible and entrusted with more responsibility, so that the day will come when our governments will be more responsible. When they go before the people seeking a mandate to govern the country, they will have a platform, and it is on the basis of that platform that the government will defend the interests of the public.

I am asking the Reform Party to continue its efforts to reform the British parliamentary system, particularly this aspect of it.

[The Late William Kempling, May 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to say a few words in memory of Bill Kempling, the former Conservative member for the riding of Burlington, Ontario.

Mr. Kempling was already an experienced parliamentarian when I met him in 1984. He first became a member of the House of Commons in 1972 and was re-elected without interruption until 1993, when he took well deserved retirement.

He was the chief whip of the government under the Right Hon. Joe Clark, who was Prime Minister at the time. He was also a parliamentary secretary under the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney.

Despite this distinguished career in politics, we would be remiss in not mentioning his achievements in the Royal Air Force in southeast Asia during the World War II, where he was a Japanese prisoner of war. Despite this event, which marked his life, he was never bitter toward his former enemies.

Bill Kempling told us that one Japanese died in his arms during the war. He said he gathered up some of the man's personal effects thinking that one day, perhaps, he could return them to his family. He told us that he had had the opportunity as a parliamentarian to travel to Japan and had managed to reach the young man's family. He gave them the young man's effects personally. He was very moved by this.

He always encouraged young people to join and take part in the world of politics. He was also an inveterate collector of old books, which he adored and he liked to read in his leisure time.

I offer my sincere condolences and those of the Bloc Quebecois to his family, his friends and his former colleagues.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the hon. member that the first parliamentary institution in Quebec dates back to 1792, which means that there has been a Quebec Parliament for 204 years. It predates Confederation by 75 years. It must, therefore, be acknowledged that the people of Quebec have been in existence as an entity for a very long time. The day that certain people in Quebec decided to join Upper Canada, there was no referendum held. There was no referendum at all. A little group of people in Quebec and Ontario decided to create Confederation by joining together the two peoples.

Today, they are trying to sell us on the idea that the people of Quebec are not a people, whereas they have existed as a people for 204 years. We are not merely an ethnic group, we are a people who have been in existence for at least 204 years, with a parliamentary institution. We are one of the first peoples in North America to have our own parliamentary institution. All that seems to be getting forgotten.

So now, trying to make us swallow the idea that the people of Quebec are not entitled to get out of the Canadian Confederation with 51 per cent, that is 50 per cent plus 1, is like considering that this people no longer has its powers as a people, whereas we are the oldest people in North America. Before that, there were the native people, but they were made up of a number of smaller peoples, whom the French Canadians of the time respected, while the English Canadians hated them. They were always at war with the English, but they always got along well with the French. We have always dealt freely with them.

This is the big issue. If the agreement between Upper Canada and Lower Canada and the two founding peoples had been respected, and if it was still respected nowadays, perhaps we would not be holding this debate in the House at this time. Over time, particularly after the last world war, the federal government started to levy taxes, impose its legislation, meddle in the areas of education, unemployment insurance, health and so on, all of which were areas of jurisdiction of the people of Quebec.

When I listen to the speech of the hon. member for Simcoe Centre, it does not hold together. He is off topic. That is not the subject for today, it is whether the people of Quebec are entitled or not to separate with 50 per cent plus one.

[Supply, May 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member was a bit off the mark today. He extolled the virtues of Canada. There may be some advantages to living in Canada, but the question is whether or not Quebec has the right to decide its own future. That is what the questions I will put to him will be about.

It feels strange to hear members of this Liberal government speak today, given that they had previously recognized referendums as a means of decision making. When Quebecers lost the referendum in 1982, the federal government acknowledged the referendum result.

Same thing again with the referendum on the Charlottetown accord. Quebecers won, the federalists lost. The government's proposal was rejected and, once again, the verdict was readily accepted. The question is why does the Prime Minister keep repeating day in and day out that a referendum is nothing more than a means of public consultation and that any decision made is not final.

Strangely enough, this change in attitude coincides with a very tight vote, with 49.6 per cent of Quebecers voting for sovereignty. It took these tight results to notice all of a sudden that the government is changing the rules of the democratic game. The credibility of democracy and of our financial institutions are at stake here. That is why we are debating this very important issue today.

Why did it take two referendums before NewFoundland eventually joined the Confederation? The first results were not very high; they were closer the second time around. The decision to join the Constitution in Newfoundland was made on the basis of a very close vote-50 or 51 per cent, 50.5 per cent-in a referendum. While a 50 per cent plus one verdict is good enough to join the Confederation, it is not good enough when you want out.

I would like the hon. member to tell me why, if it takes 50 per cent of the votes plus one to join the Confederation, the same rule does not apply for leaving the Confederation. I would like to hear what he has to say on this.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 2nd, 1996]

And of Canada as well. But I, Mr. Speaker, am more interested in Quebec and not as concerned about what is happening outside Quebec.

In my opinion, employment insurance is a kind of smoke screen put up by the government to show that its proposal will create more jobs than good old unemployment insurance. When one knows that the purpose of manpower training is to create jobs, one realizes that the federal government has no real intention of withdrawing from this area.

I submit to the House that this bill allows the government not to create jobs but to create a new tax. In fact, the secretary of state responsible for finance stated a few weeks ago here in this House that the new UI fund will be much bigger than in the past, since premiums are higher and benefits lower. This fund will grow significantly. There is talk of billions of dollars within five years. The secretary of state even said that this fund would be used to reduce the deficit. This would make it a new tax, would it not? Let us be clear. We-at least in the Bloc Quebecois-are intelligent enough to understand this kind of thing.

The secretary of state added that premiums were now higher so we can meet UI needs during hard times. May I remind members that we are living in hard times. I wonder how much the government will collect during good times. It should be quite a haul.

The free trade agreement with the U.S. and the rapid technological changes of the last few years have turned employability and job requirements upside down.

This means we must act very quickly in setting rules so that people can upgrade their skills in light of the new requirements resulting from technological change and free trade with the U.S. and other countries. This bill, this new UI reform, does not really address these issues.

The other reason I disagree with this bill is that the Liberal government has never had much credibility, especially now, and we have a hard time believing in it. I was here in this House when there was a UI reform proposal and the Liberals were in opposition. I heard Sheila Copps and the "rat pack" condemning that UI reform proposal roundly. Yet, unlike today's reform, the one back then had it all over this one, as far as being just and fair is concerned.

For these reasons, I think the government has no credibility whatsoever to manage the system. As employers and unions have said in the past, I say to the House that the government should partially privatize the management of UI and manpower training. A private UI system, like any private insurance company, should manage the UI fund, which, in fact, comes entirely from employers and employees.

The board of directors would manage the system, and part of the training would be managed jointly by management and union representatives.

Let me explain why we should proceed that way. Given that only employers and employees contribute to the UI fund, they should be responsible for managing it. This only makes sense. There would be much less waste, there would be much less grandstanding. Like any other insurance, it would be aimed strictly at protecting employees and meeting their needs.

Here is another reason. If we make employees and employers more responsible, there is a chance they will manage everything better, otherwise they would have to bear the consequences and be forced to collect higher premiums.

Currently, there are employers who tend to lay off employees too quickly. The minute something happens, they say: "No problem. We will let them go. The unemployment insurance system will look after them".

If an employee misbehaves, if he is late a few times, if his wife is sick and he does not show up for work, his employer is sometimes quick to fire him. This, unfortunately, often happens too easily and too quickly. Why? It is because employers count on the government or the unemployment insurance system to look after employees who are laid off.

The same is true in the case of an employee who decides to not go to work because he feels he does not have enough holidays, because he is a little tired, or for any other trivial reason, or an employee who does not work well and does not care because "if I lose my job, I can claim UI benefits".

By contrast, if the employee and the employer had to meet all the costs involved, they would be more responsible, if only to avoid having to pay increased premiums. And if they did have to pay more, they would be more careful in the future. Indeed, an employer would then think twice before firing an employee for a trivial reason.

So, we could adjust more quickly and effectively if employees and employers could manage a private unemployment insurance fund, as well as part of the manpower training required to truly meet the needs of businesses, given the current and rapid technological changes, and given the free competition, particularly in North-America but also worldwide. This would result in an improved economy, something that is necessary, considering that way too many people are unemployed and live on welfare.

For these reasons, I feel that we should soon set aside the unemployment insurance program and replace it with an insurance similar to any other type of insurance, whether it is private medical care insurance, life insurance, etc., particularly since unemployment insurance meets a daily need.

Again, for these reasons, I strongly suggest to the minister that, if he wants a true unemployment insurance reform, he should withdraw from this program and give employers and employees the responsibility of managing their own unemployment insurance fund.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I know that members of the Bloc Quebecois are joining together in defending this style of management, which goes against the interests of the people of Quebec in particular.

[Price Of Gasoline, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to forget that this responsibility ultimately falls on his shoulders. He himself has the power to intervene under the law.

If the minister thinks the evidence is not sufficient, why then does he not decide to launch an investigation into this since he has the power to do so?

[Price Of Gasoline, May 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

This minister is responsible for promoting competition. Yet, over the last month, the price of gasoline has increased by more than 25 per cent.

To protect consumers just as the American government is doing right now, what is the minister waiting for to use his powers under the Competition Act to order an investigation into the possibility of collusion among companies?