Yvan Bernier

[Coast Guard, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again for the Prime Minister because the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has just said once again that he would first implement the new fee schedule and then conduct a review. This makes no sense.

I wish to remind the Prime Minister that, according to the stakeholders who appeared before the fisheries and oceans committee, and according to the Great Lakes Commission, the new fee schedule will have serious consequences.

Does the Prime Minister realize that, by letting his Minister of Fisheries and Oceans blindly go ahead with his new fee schedule, he is endangering thousands of jobs as well as the economies of the regions along the St. Lawrence and around the Great Lakes?

[Coast Guard, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

This afternoon, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will disclose his new fee schedule for the coast guard. Along with a near majority of Canadian stakeholders, the Great Lakes Commission, a U.S. organization representing the eight states bordering the Great Lakes, sent Raymond Chrétien, the Canadian ambassador in Washington, a letter asking the Canadian government to delay the implementation of its new fee schedule for coast guard services.

Since the unilateral imposition of a coast guard fee schedule could have serious repercussions on trade with the U.S., will the Prime Minister act on this request by the U.S. and ask his minister to delay his decision?

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to urge the Prime Minister to meet with the 100 representatives of the Gaspé and Lower St. Lawrence region, who raised a total of $7,000 in "toll collections" and personal contributions to come to Ottawa today to tell him, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development that they will not stand by and let their region wither while this unemployment insurance reform drains our part of the country.

They speak on behalf of 30,000 people who, throughout eastern Quebec and in every regional municipality of our ridings in the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspé Peninsula, have expressed their opposition to this reform. All these regions, whose economies depend on seasonal industries, would like to make you understand what they are saying.

Prime Minister, you cannot refuse to meet with these spokespersons who have had a 32-hour bus ride to get here and let you hear their cry from the heart.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, to talk about "promoting something which is unhealthy", as the member just did, is making a discriminatory statement and it is precisely what the bill seeks to avoid. So we must-

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 7th, 1996]

I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think this will be a very long day, but would it possible to remind Reform members to stick to the substance of the bill?

Unless there was an interpretation problem, I understand that the hon. member who just spoke portrayed homosexual behaviour as unhealthy. He gave an example from his little book, but he was in fact making a value judgment.

I wish to remind the House that the purpose of this bill is to stop people from discriminating against those with a different sexual orientation. I feel that the comments made by the hon. member amount to a value judgment. I would like him to get back to the bill

under consideration so we can talk about it. But we should not make value judgments.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, once again this marks a sad moment in the life of a member of Parliament, to have to stand up in this House to speak on a bill with such devastating effects on the lives of our fellow citizens. We have said many times, and are forced to say again today, this is a sad day. People are not yet properly aware of the consequences, and that is what I find surprising. Unemployment insurance-let us call a spade a spade-is a tool of economic stabilization. It is something that is necessary and useful in most of our ridings. I do not think it is just a coincidence that it is a Canadian invention.

How can we make people understand? How can we ensure that the hon. members across the floor understand, when the time comes to vote on these motions, on this bill? What can we do to ensure that people will understand all of the importance of what is at stake. The hon. member across the way, in some bits of her speech on this group of motions, referred to a program that has not changed in 25 years. I may perhaps be in agreement with certain points. We ought perhaps to have started changing a few things, but changing unilaterally, and in the way that has been adopted, means that the only beneficiary of this reform will be the coffers of the government. It can hardly be a surprise that the opposition is making an outcry. It is hardly a surprise that there has been an outcry in certain ridings that have to live with serious unemployment. Their outcry comes as no surprise.

How is it that here, in this House of Commons, in this Parliament-and yet we have in front of us some educated people-we are unable to make them understand that?

I can hardly believe it, and I am not anxious to see the effect all this will have. We have unemployment insurance as it exists currently, and we have the problems. I would like to be told once again, but where do we see in this bill that people will really be sure to get a job? The government is only playing on words. It has only been window dressing, to introduce measures to reduce the amounts given to claimants and the length of time they will receive them.

As was said earlier, everyone will be affected. I come from a remote riding, the Gaspé Peninsula. Incidentally, I think that is the most beautiful part of Quebec and of Canada, the nicest riding. It is not only people who make their living from the fisheries and forestry who will be affected. People who work in construction, whether in Montreal or in Toronto, are also experiencing some fluctuation in their field, and they will be seriously affected.

I can give you an example in that regard. With this new bill, a person working in construction will find himself trying as much as possible to put together his work hours or work weeks in a given time, because if he is not careful, the amount of benefits he will receive when he is not working, that is, when he is on unemployment insurance, or employment insurance, will be reduced.

Consequently, people will only want to work during periods where it will be to their benefit, but not necessarily when the customer needs their services. A Montreal customer might need a door handle fixed on a Saturday morning in February, but it might unfortunately be more convenient for the worker to do it in May, because he could then add it to his hours of work during the summer. This is just one example.

I know that this group of motions refers to it without referring to it. I am trying to see where it is mentioned in the definitions. But the details on how to calculate the hours of work-for fishermen, for example-will be in the regulations. This is just to show you how obscure the process is at this time. It is easy to see why both the opposition and the people want as much time as possible to discuss and study this bill.

I was going to give some examples concerning fishermen, self-employed workers and lumberjacks. Under the current legislation, benefits are based on the number of weeks. The people in my region are used to quantifying their work. This is something tangible. A vat of fish is not the same as a given number of hours. That is how pay is determined and how benefits are claimed at the end of the year. As for lumberjacks, they chop 1, 10 or 20 cords of wood. Again, this is something tangible. How will this be converted to hours of work, after the bill takes effect?

The current definitions and regulations do not specify how this will be done. They say it is coming. It is coming so fast that we will get run over because we could not see it coming. The people have a right to know exactly how all this will be calculated, because it is their lives that will be affected.

Madam Speaker, I know that you, too, come from a region with many forestry workers. You know how hard these people work. I cannot see them walking around with notebooks in their hands, saying: "Hey, boss, I worked in this part of the forest for an hour". No. They will say: "I cut so much wood". Will there be a conversion? How will all this be calculated? I do not know. The vast majority of people do not know.

One thing that is becoming clear to them is the impact the cuts will have. We are told right away that there will be a dividing factor. The effect of this dividing factor will be to reduce the benefit amounts. What good does it do the public to get fleeced like that?

I would have expected a bill of this importance to rely on partnership with the public, to call upon the public's co-operation. From the outset, the public is told: "You will receive benefits over a shorter period, your benefits will be lower and, if you claim benefits too often, we will get on your case and impose another penalty on you".

All this is quite disheartening and does not leave much leeway to try to amend the bill. That is why, with the group of motions before us, we hope to review all the proposed definitions contained in the bill. There is nothing in there to make people feel secure and to give them an idea of what could be done to protect them. It is all going one way and one way only, straight in the government's pockets.

But the people cannot in turn dip into someone else's pockets when they go shopping after work, looking for a product that they need. They have worked, they have learned to live with the shortage of employment around them and to supplement their monthly income with unemployment benefits, but overnight all this will change, yet they are expected to believe that it will be good for them, while it has been made clear from the beginning that they will receive less money. That is beyond me.

I raised this point last week, but now that I have found the quotation again, I would like to read it once again. The person who used to sit in front of me, the former Minister of Fisheries, Mr. Tobin, broke his silence last week. He made a statement on May 1. He said to the Prime Minister: "No more cuts please". He is very polite, but he still asked that no more cuts be made. He said that, while his province collected a disproportionately high amount of money, because of its disproportionate reliance on federal transfer payments, it has reached its limit. The Prime Minister's best friend is giving him a warning while they are still friends: "Enough is enough". We are already hit hard because we lack jobs. Now, in addition to that, the victims of that job shortage will be targeted.

The one thing I deplore is: Why did the member for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte wait until he was gone? Why did he wait until he left Ottawa to make himself so clearly understood? He is now the premier of his province and he sees how the lack of jobs affects his population. He says: "What Ottawa is doing is not right".

But he is no longer here. Will I have to wait until others leave before saying these things? The damage will have been done. The government imposed time allocation. We are being gagged. This is what it means. We are forced to contain ourselves, to not speak longer about a bill that will deeply affect society in Canada and Quebec.

We are told: "Yvan, shut up, you said enough". But those who, not long ago, had the power to speak in this House and are now gone say: "What Ottawa is doing is not right. Enough is enough".

I hope that some members opposite will rise and will not wait until they leave Ottawa to say to the Prime Minister: "We cannot go ahead with this reform. We must find a partnership with the opposition and with interest groups to rebuild this system in a climate of confidence and dignity". Currently, given the bill before us, the government is only helping itself.

For these reasons, I cannot support this legislation and I will rise again, as soon as other motions allow me to do so, to voice my opposition.

[Employment Insurance Act, May 2nd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, this is a sad day. The debate on the Unemployment Insurance Act-now called employment insurance by the government-is coming to an end. I am trying to find out exactly where in the documents before me, in Bill C-12, the way jobs will be created is defined.

I cannot see it anywhere. That is why I cannot understand why they want to change the name. I think the purpose of this bill is rather to change the old Unemployment Insurance Act. To call it employment insurance is deceitful. I have publicly and repeatedly proclaimed that this has nothing to do with employment insurance. Rather, this bill-whose real purpose is to reduce operating costs, benefits, the number of beneficiaries, who are the victims of the lack of jobs-is a kind of deficit insurance for the government.

Let me explain. I have certainly said so before, but I will say it again. Sometimes, when you say something often enough, people in this House eventually understand. With the serious-and hidden-cuts it has made, the government is going to save nearly $5 billion on the backs of victims of the lack of jobs. The governing party was rather straightforward about it. The purpose of this bill is solely financial. They should have called it deficit insurance. I think Canadians would understand that, they would see that the government is trying to address the deficit. Instead they save money at the expense of the unemployed and call it employment insurance. This is not making much progress.

Yet, as my colleagues have often pointed out many of the members across the way used to be form the opposition. I suppose they were closer to their constituents then. I suppose they listened more then. So, what happened the night of October 25, 1993? If I am allowed a joke, should not the members opposite carry the warning "best before October 25, 1993" since these elected representatives are making cuts on the back of their constituents?

I am saying that because I feel a little sad. I am looking at the members from the maritime provinces, I know that many of them were paid a visit by their constituents during the holidays. I can see a few smiles, but I know that things got pretty rough some evenings, and these members were not smiling then. I fear for them when they go back to their constituencies for the next recess. People watch TV, listen to the news and they can see that not too many changes have been made to this bill. They can see that the much criticized irritants are still in there for the most part. I cannot understand why it remains so.

I would like to mention something which just came out in the media-since he is no longer a member of this House, I can mention his name. Mr. Brian Tobin, the former fisheries minister, is said to have made the following statement: "The reform of Unemployment Insurance, which is aimed at reducing benefits paid out to claimants, deals a severe blow to Atlantic Canada where thousands of fishermen, loggers and other workers are relying on this federal program to supplement their seasonal income".

I have not had the time to read the whole thing yet, but we know how high and mighty Mr. Tobin can sound; I am happy to see that

he has now come to his senses and appears ready to stand up for people in his province. Is he now going to preach common sense?

He has acknowledged that people who go on UI have to do it to supplement their income because there is no other way. Naming a few noble occupations, he recognizes that in the maritimes people cannot work year-round at their job.

Madam Speaker, you and I, since we are stuck here in Ottawa, we cannot fish to feed ourselves. We cannot cut our own firewood. Somebody else has to do it for us. Why is it that these people are being hurt? Will each one of us here think about it when we light a fire in our fireplace tonight? Will each of us think about that the next time we buy fish? Will we think about those who will be bludgeoned by this bill and, as fellow Canadians and consumers, will we say: well, fish was not too expensive today and the federal government is really picking on fishermen.

I want to warn all consumers and all fish eaters, especially now that spring is back and that the lobster season is upon us. I like to give the following example: the next time you go out to buy lobster or fish, would you be ready to pay five times the current price for the product? If you are not ready to do so, I warn you that there will be serious social upheaval. Those who agree to catch and sell the fish, those who cut the wood for your fireplace, are limited to about ten weeks of work in the year, not because they are lazy, but because nature makes it so.

How many times will we have to repeat it? I can only feel sorry. How come people dare to say the truth only when they get out of the House, out of government? Who is the real boss in this business? Who? How come, when people cross over to the other side of the House, they do not see things in the same light? When will Canadians and Quebecers have representatives in this place who will use common sense and listen to the population, whatever happens?

All the people we heard, the unions, said: "Yes we recognize that something should be done". They were willing to lend a hand. I acknowledge that as opposition we protested, but we also tried to lend a hand. What is truly missing is the partnership, the spirit of co-operation, which is necessary for a far reaching reform. The government needs co-operation, the government needs everyone to believe that the program is being changed for the good of everybody.

To participate, people need to see a spark. They need to know that they will be listened to. They have to feel that, at the end of the process, they will not be scorned, that maybe the government will succeed in meeting part of its objectives and, as for themselves, they will see something in the bill that they recommended. But such is not the case now.

Therefore, you will understand that on each and every motion I will get up in this House, as long as the government will allow me, and express my disagreement loud and clear. I hope that eventually people across the floor will understand. Between individuals of good will there is always the possibility of an agreement. I will continue to play the parliamentary game, to hold out my hand, but eventually the people will remember what is going on and they will let the members on the other side know when the time comes.

[Coast Guard, April 25th, 1996]

I will give the minister a second chance to answer my question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister recognize that, by imposing user fees on aid to marine navigation, he runs the risk of diverting marine traffic to ports on the east coast of the U.S. and on the Mississippi, at the expense of the port of Montreal, thus undermining its role as a North American shipping hub?

[Coast Guard, April 25th, 1996]

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

The marine shipping industry is very important to Montreal's economy. Today, the Conseil régional de développement de l'Île de Montréal, the City of Montreal, the minister of state responsible for Montreal and the Montreal Chamber of Commerce have joined in condemning the user fee policy the minister intends to apply to Coast Guard services.

Does the minister not agree that imposing a fee structure without first assessing its economic impact could have a devastating effect on Montreal's marine industry, which creates more than 14,000 direct and indirect jobs and generates $1.25 billion in economic benefits?

[Coast Guard, April 23rd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will try again. Does the minister agree that, far from helping the economy, his draft regulations will result in marine traffic going to American ports, which means jobs moving to the United States and an increase in the number of the unemployed in eastern Canadian ports, particularly those along the St. Lawrence River?