Yvan Bernier

[Fisheries, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, could you ask the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine to be quiet. It would do him good to hear this. He, too, has one of these plants in his riding.

[Fisheries, May 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

In order to make known their dissatisfaction with the crab fishery plan, deckhands and processing plant workers are still refusing to go back to work. They are thus protesting the displacement of part time jobs resulting from the minister's plan.

Today, the minister is allocating crab quotas to ground fishermen. Does the minister realize that, unless he first resolves the present conflict with workers, there is a risk that this already very tense situation will blow up?

[Coast Guard, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister could also take the time himself to reread the author's letter, which has been published, because, whatever the case may be, according to the actual study on the 20 million, the author also indicates that he is concerned about traffic being diverted from Canadian to American ports.

Now that it is clearly established that the minister cannot rely on any study, what is he waiting for to scrap his user fees, until some serious and credible impact studies are done?

[Coast Guard, May 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

For several months now, the minister has been referring to the results of an impact study to justify his position on applying user fees to the coast guard. In a letter dated April 23 of this year, Christopher Wright, the author of the study, flatly contradicts the minister's assertions and says that it cannot be concluded from his study that the marine industry will be able to absorb the planned fee structure.

Both of them cannot be right. Either the minister has misinterpreted the study in question, or he has misrepresented the results. In either case, can he inform this House on what he is now basing himself in sticking to his decision?

[Fisheries, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the snow crab plan is missing its target, and one of the main consequences is a further drop in already low incomes. That is what the minister needs to understand.

Can the minister make a formal commitment in this House to respond in the affirmative, as soon as possible, to a request from these workers, who would like to meet with him?

[Fisheries, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Yesterday, over 1,100 people gathered in Tracadie and in the Gaspé Peninsula to condemn the current plan for the snow crab fishery. This plan shows a complete lack of sensitivity to the effects on employment of crew members and plant workers in this industry. In fact, one quarter of them will lose their jobs and three quarters will lose four weeks of work.

Since the crab fishery is being boycotted in the gulf sector, zone 12, is the minister aware of the urgency of the situation and the human drama affecting crew members and plant workers in these regions?

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, May 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since the government introduced its proposed unemployment insurance reform, seasonal workers have continuously demonstrated their opposition to this reform, which is unfair to this class of workers who are employed only at certain times of the year.

Fishery workers, forestry workers, construction workers, tourism workers and many others have been holding demonstrations, making speeches and collecting money to fight in their own way against this reform that will leave them penniless.

For them, the unemployment insurance reform is just the opposite of a magic solution to unemployment. While UI benefits provides economic stabilization to these workers, the proposed reform will free the government of its responsibility toward those whose livelihood is tied to a regional and seasonal economy.

The government is sending the people in the regions a plain and simple message: "It is your problem, not ours".

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that on the last day, on a day I should perhaps call a national day of mourning for the people of one region, someone has the nerve to stand up in this House and provoke us by comparing people from different regions and making distinctions between people from Ontario, from Quebec and from New Brunswick. Does he mean that there are second class citizens in Canada?

I can hardly control my anger, but my anger is nothing compared to what awaits them if they dare visit some parts of Canada where people believe that their occupation is a noble one. If those people are told that they must compare their situation to what Ontario got-Madam Speaker, how is it that when the Department of Industry allocates its research and development funds it is always the same who receive the lion's share?

And they say that they paid to much in unemployment insurance. This is shocking and appalling. There are words that I do not want to use because I want to follow rules and because I want to be here to vote against the bill.

Speaking about comparisons, we can say that we were had last Thursday. The Minister of Fisheries chose to publish his new fee schedule exactly at the time the Quebec government was bringing down its budget. Unfortunately, the parliamentary secretary did say: "Yes, it is true that in Quebec you are going to pay a little more for the navigation aids that the Coast Guard will offer". When time comes to do some Quebec-bashing, they do not hesitate, but they deny it. They do it when the media's attention is on something else in Quebec City. But when times comes to face the facts, they prefer to hide.

How can we make them understand? I wanted in good faith to work here. I wanted to make them understand, but, on the last day, they want to make a comparison. If they want to compare apples, let then let us compare apples, but when we are speaking of money and remuneration like that, I wish they would put everything on the table. This is not the case presently. They are making comparisons about people who want to work but who, since there are no jobs, need that economic stabilizer that unemployment insurance is.

I will conclude with the following point. Can you cut firewood in downtown Toronto? Can you fish lobster and other species in downtown Toronto? No. Tell us if we are not welcome there, and if that is the case, so long, folks.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank you for recognizing me on such a sad day. This is for the official opposition the last chance to rise in this House and speak against a reform that will affect all Canadians and all Quebecers.

A lot of things have happened in this House, including the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982. Some of the members of government at that time are still here and are about to deal a severe blow to regions like mine. This will hurt not only my riding, but also all the workers who now have the chance to work. They stand to lose their jobs and be hard hit, if their businesses were to go through a rough patch or the economy were to take a downturn.

It is with an aching heart that I rise today in this House to say again, loud and clear, what my constituents from the Gaspé area came here to say, last week, in front of Parliament. These people took a 32- hour bus ride at their expense, because the round trip takes 32 hours. They came here to ask very peacefully to meet with the Prime Minister in order to express their grievances, because nothing in this bill gives them hope for a brighter future after July 1, the day on which this infamous bill comes into force.

Where can we find the strength, maybe it is born of despair, to ask the government to understand their point of view and to postpone this bill, because I think this is the night we will be asked to sentence regions like mine to death? So, I rise today in a last-ditch effort.

I will review all of the issues, one by one. First of all, I want to mention the title of this bill, which is misleading. They call it employment insurance, but nothing in this bill guarantees that jobs will be created. On the contrary, it is more like deficit insurance. The people on the other side have started to admit that they hope to get more money out of the unemployed and to be able to set aside $5 billion at the expense of the jobless. It is outrageous, it is a disgrace. Five billion dollars.

There was a joke we used to tell when I was a kid. "If someone steals some chips in a store, he is called a thief". But if someone steals $5 billion, what is he called? A politician? I am not proud to be a part of Parliament on such a tragic day.

I would also like to mention three new irritants that will strike directly at people in the regions. I am talking about the eligibility rule, the rate of benefits rule and the intensity rule.

What does the eligibility rule provide for? A minimum of910 hours of work. We talked about this throughout the debate, but each time, we were subjected to time allocation, that is, in other words, we were gagged. What does the 910 hours eligibility rule mean when one works in the regions and according to the seasons? It means twenty-six 35 hour weeks. To my knowledge, there are not many seasonal jobs that make it possible to work that long.

And what of the rate of benefits rule? They try to make us believe that the irritants are now fewer. Does putting a plaster on a wooden leg reduce the pain? No, it does not. The bill, as introduced in the House after prorogation, provided for the dividing of consecutive work hours. This is not true any more. Now the work hours will be divided by the higher of the following: with the unemployment rate in our region, 14 weeks, or if one is lucky enough to live in a region with a lower unemployment rate, a greater number of weeks or the period worked. But what is the most vicious, I would say, is that this will have to be within a 26 week period. This bill, once passed, will compel people to concentrate their hours of work.

What will the construction worker tell me, in February, when I ask him to go over to my house to repair the door knob, while I am in Ottawa? He will tell me that he would prefer to see my door knob break in May because May is included in his 26 week period of work, and because he would then have the opportunity to group together his weeks and to concentrate his hours of work. This was just another example. Fishermen and lumberjacks are not the only ones who will be affected. This is an important point.

The intensity rule is another measure that strikes directly at those who work in regions. In an effort to soften this intensity rule, i.e. the 5 per cent penalty, a limit was established and it was decided that those with family earnings that are less than $26,000 in total will be exempted from this rule. But I will come back on this issue later.

How can someone who earns $26,000 and has a family of four believe that he will have a decent life? He will only survive. Therefore, I think the intensity rule will once again hit hard those regions that depend on seasonal work.

It is sad, but I would like to remind our viewers that the official opposition, in spite of its goal to promote sovereignty, has tried by all acceptable and recognized parliamentary means available to do its job and represent the people, to support victims of the job shortage. But, every time we tried, we were prevented from doing so. Every time we tried, we were gagged.

I tried in vain to extend a helping hand, to say that we need to build a partnership, that we need to build a relationship based on trust because I think the government needs the public's trust to be able to implement such changes. Unfortunately, the members opposite did not understand.

It is appalling or, should I say, frustrating for a parliamentarian like myself who has tried to use all available tools. However, I would like everybody in this House to know that it is much more appalling and frustrating for the victims of the job shortage, who will see their benefits reduced as of July 1.

I fear the public's reaction. I am scared. I am even afraid, since we do develop relationships in this House, that some of our Liberal colleagues will have a very hard time when they go back to their ridings after the House adjourns for the summer. Each one of these

members will have to face his or her constituents. I hope they will remember what happened on May 14. I sure hope so.

In closing, I would like to tell the government that, if it wanted money, why has it not decided to get it from those who have large salaries? As mentioned by the member for Mercier a few moments ago, the maximum is being brought down from $43,000 to $39,000. I would like to add that, while we are doing our job, people are waiting.

Why have MPs not been asked to contribute to the fund? Why have senators, who, I think, do not work much sometimes, not been asked? The government could have taken contributions from their salaries to give that money back to people who do want to work and who do not sleep on the job.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 14th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I will have the opportunity to rise several times today to ask a question or make a comment.

There is something bothering me in what the hon. member just said. Could he tell me how seasonal workers will benefit from the so-called training tools that he raved about at the end of his speech and that are supposed to be included in this bill?

There seems to be an inconsistency in the member's speech. First, Quebec has always maintained that manpower training should come under provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, I cannot see how the federal government could boast about promoting manpower training. Second, I represent a region that relies heavily on seasonal industries. It is not our fault if the water is frozen in the wintertime and we cannot fish. The same logic applies if you plant or cut trees in the bush.

These workers have noble occupations too. They do not need additional training to do their work. Sure, they learn and improve their skills every year, but this in itself will not extend their season. The purpose of training is to increase the work period. How does the bill before us, and on which we will vote this evening, benefit people from these regions?