Alfonso Gagliano

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I want to inform the House that government members will be dividing their allotted time into 10-minute speeches and 5-minute periods for questions and comments, except ministers who will take up all of the allotted time pursuant to the Standing Orders.

I have had the honour of representing the people of Saint-Léonard since 1984. During that time, I have never forgotten for one minute that, since the birth of Canada, generation after generation of members have sat in this House to express their pride and their confidence in Canada.

These men and women, of different ages and different backgrounds, also come from the various regions that make up one of the largest countries in the world. Too few of them represented in the past or represent today the people who lived here hundreds of years before the first European even set foot on this continent.

All of these people, whose memories are still with us here, today, belonged to different political parties which took part in some pretty vicious sparring matches. As you know, Madam Speaker, unanimity is not the rule in this House. It is more the exception. However, members who sat in this House until recently all shared the same desire to serve their constituents and to contribute to the growth and unity of Canada.

In time of peace as in time of war, in time of prosperity as in time of economic crisis, every generation of members has strived to make Canada one of the most prosperous, peaceful and admired countries in the world.

Our sovereignty as a nation and our maturity as a society have gradually, patiently and relentlessly been built by those who believed in the rule of law, the invincibility of justice and respect for our differences, those who know the value of experience, efforts, destiny and solidarity. It is now our turn to add to this magnificent institution designed by our predecessors who also laid out the foundations.

Whether we were born in Senneterre or in Siculiana, in Saskatchewan or in Sicily, whether we speak English with a Bonaventure accent or French with a Berlitz accent, in our own way, we all say the same thing.

Like thousands of other hon. members before us and like millions of Canadians, we say that, today and yesterday, this is the country that we love, this is the great and magnificent country that we want to protect.

Since the last election, there is in this House a group of members whose numbers are large enough to form the Official Opposition and whose ambition is to put an end to the Canadian experiment. I respect unreservedly and unhesitatingly the decision of many Quebec constituents to send separatist members here, in Ottawa.

All Bloc Quebecois members were elected here as were the members of the Liberal Party, of the Reform Party and of other political groupings. These federal separatist members speak, sometimes with emotion, of the need to protect bilingualism in the Canadian Armed Forces and to take care of our Canadian publishers. But nobody in this House nor elsewhere in Canada has any illusion about the real objectives of the Bloc Quebecois. The Bloc Quebecois does not say this in so many words, but what they want is to destroy Canada, since Canada without Quebec will not be Canada any more.

The Bloc members claim to be good surgeons. They want us to believe that, with the help of the PQ, their big brother, they would be able to painlessly sever one of the parts of the Canadian Federation. The operation could be a success; the only problem is that the patient, that is Canada, will die.

Now, these few members of the Bloc are protesting their temporary patriotism, even boasting about it. This is the first stage of the surgical operation they want to do. This is what I call the anaesthetic.

But I can assure you that nobody will be beguiled by this. Quebecers, the sons and daughters of explorers, of discoverers, of inventors will never turn their backs on the country which gave them the freedom, the wealth and the dignity to grow up and develop.

I think that the presence among us, in this Parliament, of members who claim to be able to represent Her Majesty's loyal opposition while working towards the break-up of Canada could have a beneficial effect on all Canadians, particularly on Quebecers. By reminding us every day of what we could lose as Quebecers if Canada broke up, members of the Bloc, who are allies of the Parti québécois , help us to better appreciate the value of our Canadian citizenship.

And because of the presence here of separatist members, all Canadians are finally becoming aware that Canada's unity and the preservation of our cultural heritage and of our economic security are not a problem unique to Quebec.

In the 1980 referendum, a majority of Quebecers reiterated their attachment to Canada before the whole world. Of course, we have important problems to solve, and a lot of these stem directly from the relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada, but the Bloc is not a remedy for Quebec's problems. It

is partly a symptom of the frustration that many Quebecers feel because of our failure to break the constitutional deadlock. Yet, the Bloc has done nothing to help solve these problems.

Similarly, the Reform Party is not a remedy for Canada's problems. It is largely a symptom of the impatience that many Canadians feel because of economic and political problems for which the Reform Party offers no solution.

You cannot cure a disease simply by monitoring the symptoms. We need to have the courage to solve the problems that hinder our progress as a federation and the wisdom to preserve that which made Canada one of the greatest success stories in the history of mankind.

I speak French and I am proud of it; my wife and my children speak French and are also proud of it. We are Quebecers as well as Canadians.

For me and for all my family, the knowledge of the French language and the bonds of friendship it enabled us to form have become deep roots. The French language has been for us the passport to contributing to a generous and dynamic society, the only French society in America, that welcomed us with open arms.

My deepest wish and my strongest resolve as a member of Parliament and as a Canadian citizen will always be to have the privilege to be able to contribute to the security of Quebec and to the unity of Canada. Earlier I heard my colleague from the Bloc list all the constitutional conferences that came close to giving Canada a new constitution. He forgot that during these 30 years, during which we were regrettably unable to solve our constitutional problems, some things helped Quebec develop itself. The Quebec Pension Plan and the agreement on immigration, for example, are two of them. At present, there is also the three-level infrastructure program that is working well.

During that time, Quebec developed. What programs, what things prevent Quebec from developing and being a dynamic society within a Canadian federation? I am proud to be a Quebecer, but I am also proud to be a Canadian. I will always work very democratically. I have always felt much respect for those who, even in this House, are using all the tools they have to defend their cause; but democratically, like the Bloc Quebecois, I will fight to keep this country united and to ensure that Quebec is strong, but within the Canadian federation.

That was the dream of the founding fathers of this country; that is the dream that we too, as members of Parliament, must pursue every day and at every opportunity, for the preservation of this country. We must recognize that, in spite of all our problems, millions of people would give up everything they have to come and live here in Canada.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I give consent on a condition. The member already used a few minutes so the next member may have the remaining time and not necessarily the 10 minutes.

[Department Of Labour Act, June 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, given the hon. member's lack of experience, I shall remain calm and ignore these last remarks. What I want to say however is that the chief opposition whip's remarks baffle me. He has been sitting here long enough. He should be familiar with the Standing Orders by now. If he reads the bill, he will see that there will be nothing left if my proposal is agreed to. It will become an entirely new bill.

When I said that I had stated my views, or my intentions to the hon. member the first time he had come to see me, a few months ago, to ask for my support, I meant that I had made the same objections to the bill as I did in my speech today. This bill reduces the number of jobs in a municipality with a population of 500,000 from 100 to 20 and this, retroactively. Basically, there is still discrimination.

[Department Of Labour Act, June 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has introduced a bill. Over a month ago, he came to me and asked me to support this bill, but I told him that I could not back it in its present form. He had all the time he needed to make the necessary amendments. I think that in my speech, I was honest. I congratulated the member and encouraged him to keep at it. However, if he is only interested in politicking, then I am not biting.

I maintain that he had all the time in the world to come up with some amendments. I made it clear to him from the very beginning when he asked for my support that I could not give it to him. Now that we are debating this bill in the House and he is making his speech, he is coming back to this point. The best thing to do now is to have this debate and, if he wishes, he could introduce another bill at a later time or, as I suggested, raise the matter before the human resources committee. This would certainly help the cause of these older workers a great deal. However, if he is interested in politicking, then politicking he will get.

[Department Of Labour Act, June 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take part in this important debate, because I find it essential, as the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve mentioned in his speech, where he quoted one of my most famous statements-I was not aware that I was now famous-and read a petition containing more than 2,000 names. So, for information purposes and for the record, let me add that I tabled more than 5,000 petitions concerning the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, or POWA.

For the benefit of our viewers and listeners, I will describe the program. It is intended for 55-year-old workers who lose their jobs following massive lay-offs. These last few years, God knows there have been quite a few of those. In the past, as the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve mentioned, we had a program to assist older workers from special sectors, whether it be the textile, clothing or footwear sector. The program often allowed exceptions depending on the community or the number of the lay-offs.

After the change in government and with evolving economic conditions, the Tories abolished the program and introduced a new one involving the provinces. POWA did not target any particular industry, it included all economic sectors. However, to limit public expenditures, because there were some major economic constraints, they introduced the rule of 100 jobs for every municipality of at least 500,000 residents. If you take Montreal, the number would apply to the city of Montreal. For example, in La Salle, it would be 60 jobs, and, in Saint-Léonard, it would probably be 80. But, to my mind, for the unemployed, this has always been a kind of discrimination.

The difference between the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and myself-There have been a number of meetings on the subject and we even attended some of these together, and I said this before and I say it again today, if you want to get rid of discrimination, you get rid of it across the board. If 100 is discriminatory, then 20 is just as discriminatory as 100, because where do you draw the line, Madam Speaker?

An example: 74 per cent of small businesses in Canada employ fewer than five workers, and 97 per cent employ fewer than 50. Since three quarters of all small businesses in Canada employ fewer than five workers, we would correct only 25 per cent of the discriminatory practices in this sector. As I said before, when you get rid of discrimination, you get rid of it across the board. If a practice is discriminatory, you get rid of it altogether. That is why, since October 25, with the advent of the new Liberal government I have been working with the Department of Human Resources Development to deal with all aspects of this problem. It is a social problem.

When a 55-year old worker is laid off, either in a collective lay-off or individually, it is very difficult for him to get a job. This is a social problem that has been with us since the sixties. Twice attempts were made to deal with the problem through programs which, unfortunately, failed to deliver. I am working with the minister, with the human resources development committee to which the hon. member wants to refer this bill, and our

objective is to deal with this problem once and for all through the reform of our social programs. We have young people, older workers, women and the disabled who need our help.

As we approach the 21st century, we have an economy that has changed completely, and we must deal with this through social measures that go beyond the consideration that 100 jobs are affected in a company. It is a problem because we are talking about older workers. What difference does it make whether a person works in Saint-Léonard, Ville LaSalle, Chicoutimi or Laval? That should not be a problem. We have to deal with the social issues.

At the time, I asked the hon. member to join me, with his party colleagues, so that we could all work together. All parties are represented on the Committee on Human Resources Development. When the report is comes out this fall, they want to prepare a study that includes these programs. The minister is working on this with his department. We will then be in a position to respond.

Reducing the number from 100 to 20 does not get rid of the problem. There will still be discrimination, because 74 per cent of small businesses have fewer than five employees, and more and more small businesses are being set up. We cannot depend on big companies to create jobs. We saw what happened. Like me, the hon. member is from East Montreal, and we all know what happened to the big companies in Montreal during the recession. Only small businesses will be able to create real jobs. In fact, this government is committed to creating jobs by developing small businesses, so we cannot discriminate in this area. I would urge the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve to continue his efforts, as I continue mine, to help older workers.

We must find a system, a comprehensive solution so that everybody has a job, whether the company has ten, five, twenty or fifty employees; we all know that units are becoming increasingly smaller.

The member knows quite well that if this bill were to pass tomorrow morning, there would be just as many cases in the ridings as there are today, because the problem would still be the same. Even as members of Parliament we do not know what to say sometimes; we often see cases where they are close to the 100 threshold. I know of many instances where there are 80, even 95 employees affected in a plant which does not qualify. So if the limit is 20, what will we say when there are only 17 or 18? The discrimination will be exactly the same.

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned the Steinberg case. I am well aware of that case because I met the parties involved several times here in Ottawa and in my riding. I am still working on it and I hope to solve that Steinberg problem because it is a simple matter of interpretation. We could solve it even within the existing program. The problem is that a civil servant somewhere decided to consider different parts of the company as separate units. Steinberg was a single employer and we know it moved employees from one supermarket to another, in different municipalities. These people had to follow orders, go and work a week or a day in such or such a place. When Steinberg closed its doors they were in one store rather than another, and the choice had not been theirs.

I believe that together we could have that decision reviewed and we could bring justice to these employees. However, the general problem can only be solved with the Minister of Human Resources Development and the committees which work on the matter. As it is, we have to allow some time. Social programs are not going to be reformed every year. We are in a favourable period and we must act. I am glad we are doing this now, because I think the timing is right. We have to press on.

I urge the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve not to give up. His bill did not get unanimous consent and could not be referred to a committee, but it is a subject that we should come back to. There is a problem in our society which has to be solved, but solved for good. As I said earlier, you do not correct a discrimination by creating another one. That discrimination has to disappear completely if we want to leave some hope to our workers, even those less than 55. Should there be some lay-offs, they should expect some compensation, even if they are young. They should be able to access a system allowing them to continue paying their mortgage, the rent, their children's tuition. Today, that security does not exist.

I congratulate the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and I urge him to continue his battle; he will always get my support on this. I am convinced that the reform of social programs will answer this bill.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 30th, 1994]

While I am on my feet I believe you will find unanimous consent to apply in reverse the result on Motion No. 4 to the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker after the unanimous vote I believe you could find unanimous consent to apply the vote on Motion No. 1 to Motions Nos. 24, 26, 31 and 33.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent in the Chamber to apply the vote on Motion No. 4 to Motion No. 21.

[Budget Implementation Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent to apply the result of Motion No. 4 to Motion No. 12 and to apply the result of Motion No. 1 to Motion No. 13.

[Income Tax Act, May 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, before you ask us to vote on this motion, as chief government whip, I would like to announce that this vote will be a free vote as usual. All votes on private members' business are free votes, and this one will be no exception.

I just said in French that before Your Honour asks us to vote I would like to announce as chief government whip that the vote will be a free vote as usual in Private Members' Hour.