Yves Rocheleau

[International Assistance, April 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, what President Fox wants is to see participating countries put 1% of their defence budget into the fund to assist development of the poor economies of the Americas

Is the Government of Canada in agreement with such a contribution to such a fund?

[International Assistance, April 30th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, one of the concrete ways of assisting developing countries and at the same time developing new international trade markets is to support the suggestion made by President Fox to create a development fund for the poor economies of the Americas.

Does the Canadian government plan to support the initiative proposed by President Fox and to contribute to the creation of this fund?

[Quebec, March 29th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the attitude of the Canadian government toward Quebec, its people and its institutions is looking more and more like an obsession.

After the attacks of this government on provincial jurisdictions, as exemplified by the 1999 social union framework agreement, the federal government at it again, stifling the voice of Quebec at the upcoming Summit of the Americas.

The Liberal government is essentially marginalizing Quebec and the existing consensus about its existence as a nation and its legitimate aspirations having to be recognized as such by the world.

Canada's nation building is based on centralizing in Ottawa a number of discretionary powers to spend and to manage affairs that do not belong to the federal government. This is irreconcilable with the aspirations of Quebec and of its people, regardless of their political allegiance. Let those in charge be warned that Quebec is neither stupid nor for sale.

[Employment Insurance Act, March 29th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I will say a few words on this important but incomplete bill which obviously does not answer the needs of workers in Quebec and Canada in terms of improving on the Axworthy reform.

As the member for Joliette said, we have been discussing the issue of employment insurance, formerly unemployment insurance, reform for ages. We have been discussing it since the days of Mr. Axworthy, who was replaced by the current Minister for International Trade, who was himself replaced by Mr. Dingwall, then by Mr. Doug Young, and finally by the incredible current Minister of Human Resources Development who had some problems we are all familiar with. Thus it is not the first time that members opposite are proposing major changes. They already did that with the disastrous impact we are all too familiar with.

In a riding like Trois-Rivières, in 1989 83% of workers were eligible for unemployment insurance benefits in the unhappy event that they lost their jobs because they contributed to the UI fund. Now only 34% of those who contribute to the EI fund qualify. This is what this government has managed to do. It is a scandal we are faced with daily.

This means that the Mauricie, which includes the ridings of Trois-Rivières, Champlain and Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister's riding, is being short-changed by tens of millions of dollars in funds that could have been invested to keep the economy going.

It is a bit ironic to hear the member for Saint-Maurice, the Prime Minister, with all the problems he is experiencing with the Auberge Grand-Mère, say that it was to maintain and create jobs that he invested there and that consequently he is entitled to get his money back. We know that he was involved in some of the administrative measures taken by his own government, which have deprived our region of hundreds of millions of dollars since 1994. Therefore it is indecent on his part to say such irresponsible things, which show a lack of respect and contempt for the workers of his own riding.

There are some very serious omissions in this reform, as we can see from what happened to the surplus in the employment insurance fund. We know that in less than 10 years the surplus has grown to the point where it now stands at $35 billion. The government had maintained the 1997 decision to abolish the program for older worker adjustment, better known as POWA. This program was the result of cutbacks to a more generous program, work adjustment training or WAT. This program was designed specifically for the workers in the Canadian textile industry which fell victim to decisions made in Ottawa concerning a foreign trade deal with countries less developed than ours whereby we would exchange wheat for textiles. This measure affected the economy in Quebec where 70% of the textiles were produced in those days.

There was a program specifically created for the closing of textile plants, and it was known as WAT. It was designed for all textile workers. The program was fundamentally changed and became the program for older worker adjustment, POWA, which was more universal but had more stringent rules. In 1997 the federal government had too much on its plate in its fight against the deficit on the backs of poor people, so it decided to completely abolish POWA without any reservations and any further compensation.

Today, despite the $35 billion surplus, we still have to live with the same administrative decision. When plants close, sometimes ruthlessly or for external reasons of non- profitability compared to foreign competition or management negligence, workers are footing the bill and those who are 55 years of age and over are not receiving any compensation.

In Trois-Rivières this has had the following result: the Tripaq plant, despite considerable assistance from the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec, which should be recognized, that did everything in its power to save it, had to close its doors for objective reasons. The federal government totally washed its hands of the matter. However much we appeal to the government as we do on other issues, it was useless, I am thinking of my colleague from Drummond who on the issue of the Celanese plant had some people come here to show their frustration and express their hope of being able to rely on public funds they themselves contributed to, it was useless.

I want to remind the House that the federal government has no money in the EI fund. It is $35 billion that belongs to workers and employers. Today the federal government wants to maintain the rates it talked about during its totally demagogic election campaign because the Bloc courageously opposed this before the campaign. It wants to maintain control as if this was its own money, and this is totally indecent.

If members were to ask workers and business people if they wanted POWA to be reintroduced, with all the financial help and social solidarity this program entailed, I am sure that they would agree to have substantial help provided to older workers who lose their jobs.

In a riding like Trois-Rivières this can be devastating. Despite all its promises and all its billions of dollars, the federal government's lack of concern and understanding is quite shameful. What we are talking about here is a hidden tax, a special tax paid by workers earning $39,000 or less. With only 34% instead of 83% of the people getting benefits, this is a misappropriation of funds.

We will keep on criticizing the federal government for not spending public funds most effectively, for not showing more compassion to fathers, mothers and children facing hard times, and for not strengthening the social fabric.

When we go from 83% to 34% women working part time and seasonal workers are hard hit. I thought it was shameful and totally immoral for the federal government to stop talking about seasonal jobs and start talking about seasonal workers. These workers are full time workers who unfortunately have seasonal jobs. This is something we should remind the people in charge of the EI system and their minister of. We have to adapt the system to the realities these workers are facing.

Also, this legislation goes after the students. They have summer jobs and pay EI premiums, and yet they know they will never be able to collect any benefit.

The lack of concern of the federal government applies also to the POWA file, as I mentioned, but in view of the government's surplus it also applies to an issue that has to do with the pulp and paper industry, the existence of which I am pleased to mention today. I am referring to the integrated centre for pulp and paper technology, a natural field for the Saint Maurice valley, which is vital to how we have traditionally defined ourselves.

There is a plan to merge the research centre of the Université du Québec in Trois-Rivières with the Centre for Pulp and Paper Technology at the cégep de Trois-Rivières. The Quebec government has already announced its intention to be financially involved in this project, pledging tens of millions of dollars. It is a $85 million to $100 million project.

Hopefully this afternoon the minister of finance of Quebec is going to reaffirm her intention to support this project. However the federal government is stalling. The infamous Canada Foundation for Innovation, set up by the current Minister of Finance with $1.3 billion of taxpayer money, has so far said no.

To this day nobody in this government has cared to make up for this seemingly totally arbitrary decision. This project, which is a top priority in Quebec, does not even register on Canada's radar screen.

This issue is the perfect illustration of our two solitudes. It reflects two different ways of seeing things. It shows that our priorities are very seldom the same. Hopefully Quebecers will understand that they have no future in this country, and that it is only when we are masters of our own destiny once and for all that we will be able to work within a true partnership between Quebec and Canada.

[Official Languages, February 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that my question related to the embassies located here in Ottawa.

In the same vein, can the minister tell us whether he intends to suggest to the embassies that they use both of Canada's official languages, thus enabling Quebecers and the francophones of Canada to communicate with embassies in their own language?

[Official Languages, February 14th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

A visit to the websites of the diplomatic missions in Ottawa reveals that 75% of them have no French content, while the remaining 25% contain less French than English.

Is the minister aware that this situation does not reflect the reality of Canada's two official languages?

[Financial Consumer Agency Of Canada Act, February 12th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to congratulate my colleague from Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis for her eloquent speech. We can see that she has really studied what she was talking about and has a very good grasp of it. You are missing a fine discussion with her, I am sure.

However, we cannot talk about banks and the Bank Act without talking about a distinguished Quebecer who tackled the issue in the last few years. The hon. members know that I am talking about Yves Michaud, a former Quebec delegate to Paris and who, instead of taking a very comfortable and well-deserved retirement, decided instead, in spite of his age, to put all his energy, all his talent and all his eloquence—and has plenty of all that—at the service of not only the consumers, but also of small equity investors. He wanted to make the operations and management of the banks and probably the Bank Act itself more democratic and more beneficial to those who put their trust in this very important system in our social and economic culture.

Therefore, I would like to honour Mr. Michaud for the very important things he did for the nation and people of Quebec.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis made me realize that there is one more argument to add to our long list of arguments in favour of promoting sovereignty. We sovereignists have so many arguments that we need to update the list regularly. However, there is one that was offered to us on a silver plate in this financial institutions reform, and it is the terms and conditions governing special treatment, the special status. I think it is most appropriate to use this expression in relation to the National Bank, the national bank of Quebecers, the bank of SMBs.

The 20% foreign ownership of major Canadian banks becomes 65% in the case of Quebec's national bank. I would like my colleague, the member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis, to tell us what, according to her, might be the intentions of the federal government in granting a special status not to Quebec but to its national bank.

Without imputing motives to the federal government, what is its purpose in putting the National Bank in such a vulnerable position, totally exposed to foreign control? A crucial sector of our economy could end up in the hands of foreign interests.

I would like to know if the member has an opinion on this, on the deeper motives of this government toward Quebec and the national bank of Quebecers.

[Speech From The Throne, February 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before I respond to my colleague, the member for Champlain, I would like to tell my Liberal colleague that the members opposite should be careful when they talk about such sensitive issues.

The Secretary of State for Amateur Sport once said, speaking of our former colleague, Osvaldo Nunez, a Chilean-born Canadian and Quebecer, that immigrants with such sovereignist affiliation ought to be deported, because they are not worthy of the Canadian citizenship. Such comments from over there would be far better left unsaid.

I would like to greet and congratulate my new colleague, the member for Champlain, not only on his speech, but also on winning his seat following a fight to the finish against a very big Liberal organization. His riding just like mine, which border the Prime Minister's riding, were real targets. We had many visitors, in particular the minister and member for Outremont and the Minister for International Trade.

The member for Champlain won by a slight majority but brilliantly. Already he has shown us how much he believes in sovereignty, a cause he also served in Quebec.

Let me seize this opportunity to ask him to say a few words about Cap-de-la-Madeleine, the main municipality in his riding, which will be celebrating its 350th anniversary this year. I am proud to say that my father presided over the celebrations for the 300th anniversary, in 1951, as president of the organizing committee. Cap-de-la-Madeleine has played a very important role in the history of Quebec and America.

[Speech From The Throne, February 7th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to congratulate the minister and member for Outremont on his victory in what probably was a hard fought battle.

We are aware of the traditions in the riding of Outremont, where the Liberal candidate must be strong and courageous, must be well known and must have good credentials within the party. My congratulations on your re-election. You will be here a long time.

The minister talked about research and development, and the projects, initiatives and claims of the Liberal government with regard to innovation.

I would like to know what he thinks of his government's attitude so far, unless he has new developments to share with us today, regarding the pulp and paper centre, a most important project for the Trois-Rivières area. That centre was created when the UQTR research centre and the CEGEP pulp and paper centre amalgamated into a new world class research centre, as the president of the Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières described it.

This new centre will ensure that at least 3,000 young people receive adequate training so they can adapt to the technological change the pulp and paper industry must undergo, having to go from newsprint to special types of paper.

The Government of Quebec has already offered a contribution amounting to tens of millions of dollars. However, the federal government, unless the minister has good news to tell us, has refused to grant $16.5 million as a financing package.

In light of the federal government's claims, I would like to know if the minister thinks it is acceptable for the government not to contribute to a project of such importance for Quebec, particularly for the Trois-Rivières area.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, September 25th, 2000]

Yes, the hon. member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell is a sorry figure.

This is a very important debate for the young people who stand to be directly affected by this bill. The whole process will change. I also mentioned that the debate deals with a constitutional issue.

It is an important debate for our youth, because this bill will completely change the way things work right now. It is a totally new approach. And as in many other areas, the position of Quebec, as a distinct society, as a nation, is different than that of the rest of Canada.

The focus in Quebec is on prevention. Quebec relies on rehabilitation. Canada prefers a more punitive and correctional model. These are two totally different approaches and the federal government comes trampling in to impose its process on us. If it wants to impose it on the English-speaking provinces, it is its right, its choice. But when it tries to impose it on Quebec, it must realize that the opposition being voiced by the Bloc Quebecois is only the tip of the iceberg.

If I have enough time later on, I will list the members of the coalition. The Bloc Quebecois is but the tip of the iceberg. In Quebec, nobody is supporting the federal government at this time. The Bloc Quebecois is doing a great job of opposing the bill through the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm, and we will continue to fight for as long as the government lets us and does not impose a gag order as it is wont to do too often, in view of its claims to democracy.

This is a big substantive issue, because our whole philosophy is being changed. Instead of talking about prevention, they want to punish and emphasize the seriousness of the offences of the young, and they minimize their reintegration capacity. Until now, in Quebec, our preferred approach has been to build on the principle that the individual who has made a mistake can be rehabilitated if we give him the support he needs and keep his name and the whole matter confidential. In so doing, we believe the young offender will go to school, have a family and lead the life of a law abiding citizen. All of this is being destroyed by this government and especially by the Minister of Justice.

This is also a serious constitutional issue. There are lessons to be drawn from this. I have just explained how Quebec is on a different course. It would be quite possible—and it has been requested—that Quebec be exempted from this legislation, which could be enforced in other provinces if they so wish.

As for Quebec, it should be recognized as distinct, and the Prime Minister and member for Saint-Maurice should keep the commitment he made in the aftermath of the referendum, when he described Quebec as a distinct society. He still boasts about that once in a while, but he does nothing about it.

He is not keeping his commitment when it comes to either young offenders, or the millennium scholarships, the wildlife species at risk, or health care, which is a provincial jurisdiction. It is an empty shell, which is the reason why it should not be forgotten.

The Bloc Quebecois voted against the motion because we knew it was nothing but smoke and mirrors and that it would be an empty shell. The Prime Minister shows it is indeed so every time he misses the opportunity to recognize his own people, the Quebec people, as a distinct society, not only in Quebec, but throughout the world.

No, it is too far in the past, it is asking too much of the Prime Minister, the member for Saint-Maurice.

But this is catching me off guard, I did not think it would happen so fast. I say it again, the Bloc Quebecois' opposition is only the tip of the iceberg. The whole of Quebec is behind us. The National Assembly voted unanimously, that is members of the Parti Quebecois, the Liberals, the ADQ, all of them voted unanimously denouncing the federal government's attitude.

The only support it has in Quebec these days are Quebec MPs in Ottawa. They are the only Quebecers who support this bill. We would hope that at least one of them, maybe the member for Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, would rise and tell the government to stop trying to enact Bill C-3.

Even the Supreme Court of Canada, in previous judgements, voiced its opposition to the spirit of the bill. The same goes for United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Human Rights Commission. Even the former Minister of Justice who became the Minister of Health, made comments at the time which run counter to this bill, which hopefully will be defeated. Hopefully the government will come to its senses and for once agree with the Bloc Quebecois because we know we are right.