Yvan Bernier

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

This is the period set aside for questions and comments. I know that government members are anxious. If there is unanimous consent, maybe an extra 10 minutes could be added to the period for questions and comments.

The minister mentioned earlier that Canadians all over the country feel that the unemployed should be protected. If, indeed, people in the rest of Canada want social peace and want everyone to have a place in the sun, why would they not exert some pressure in their own way? They may not have time to take part in protests because, as the minister said, their agenda may not be the same. But the rest of Canada should pressure the Minister of Finance into giving some room to manoeuvre to the Minister for Human Resources Development, because he does not have any right now.

How can the government come up with true job creation initiatives when money is taken from the unemployed, only to be used, at least partly, to implement minor employability measures? The federal government is again starting to fight with the provinces over manpower training.

I wish the minister would say loud and clear that he needs the co-operation of the rest of Canadians to put pressure on his colleague, the Minister of Finance. Some tools are required.

I can make a few suggestions to the minister. Why is it that the number of insurable weeks is based on the unemployment rate? Here is a good suggestion for the Minister of Finance. Given the lack of catalysts in our regions, why not create investment corridors, that is regions where tax credits would be available? The unemployment rate in my region is currently at 18.9 per cent. Why not start a pilot project in our region to help its economic recovery?

Worse still is the fact that in the Gaspe Peninsula, only 43 per cent or so of the active population actually does work. This means that only 4 adults in 10 work. The others have given up. People need hope. They need messages of hope. They do not need to get hit on the head.

Provided there is unanimous consent, I would appreciate it if the minister had an extra 10 minutes to answer these questions.

[Supply, March 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I may have one thing in common with the Minister of Human Resources Development who has just spoken, namely frustration, but we certainly do not have a common reason for that frustration. He says he is frustrated by lobbyists and by us in the opposition calling for withdrawal of his bill, while I am frustrated by his refusal to listen to what is being said at the grass roots level. Again this morning, there were 5,000 people in Amqui, in the riding of Matapédia-Matane, out demonstrating in order to get the message across to the minister. That figure represents more than 100 per cent of the working population.

The basic premises of the minister's bill, as presented by his predecessor, are unacceptable to those concerned most directly by unemployment insurance, that is the victims of job shortages.

And why do I say that the basic premises are wrong? Because they are not related to the need for reform. Many have expressed their support for the need to review and reform the system. But to those of us in the opposition-and for the present minister when he was in opposition-reforming something means changing it for the better.

What we are faced with now is a bill which seeks to make a 10 to 12 per cent cut, in order to satisfy the financial constraints of the Minister of Finance, a reduction of $1.5 billion. And the gap between employees' and employers' contributions will mean, in terms of benefits paid out, that the government will have an additional $5 billion in its back pocket.

On these assumptions, we clearly cannot agree. The minister mentioned two irritants, because we helped make people understand what they were. He said he was interested in hearing ways of softening the intensity rule, which I call the penalty rule. I really want to see how it is calculated, so I am sure it is eliminated. We do not want it to be calculated over the set period of 14 weeks. The minister seems to be saying the same thing. I want to see if that is really going to be the case.

What he does not mention is the entitlement rule in the regions-be it the Gaspe or Acadian region. The requirement for eligibility is 910 hours, which is equivalent to 26 weeks. He has just said himself, in fact, that it is hard for people, and that fishing does not give them more than 10 or 12 weeks' work.

How are those newly arrived on the labour market going to be eligible for unemployment insurance, if they have to have worked 910 hours or 26 weeks? In his answer later, I hope he will correct the remarks of the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine in the paper last week to the effect that a minimum of 700 hours might only be required in the Gaspe. Either the minister confirms this change or the hon. member retracts. At some point we need to know what is happening.

I would also like to include another point in my remarks. When the minister-

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, March 11th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, more than 2,500 people from the Gaspe Peninsula, the Lower St. Lawrence, New Brunswick and the Micmac nation met on the Campbellton bridge, in New Brunswick, to protest against the unemployment insurance reform.

This protest was aimed at expressing their frustration with the Liberal government, which is showing a total lack of understanding on this issue. The government must withdraw this bill that will hurt seasonal workers, among others. The government must go back to the drawing board and propose to the people of Canada and Quebec a reform that will reflect the new realities of the labour market.

Yesterday's protest shows the government, particularly the Deputy Prime Minister, that the people who condemn the unemployment insurance reform do it because they want justice and equity. These are not separatists, but men and women who cannot see the end of the tunnel.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, March 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, unemployment insurance reform is of great concern to the people of the Gaspé Peninsula. In this context, it is essential that the information given to them be exact. I deplore the statement made by the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine as reported in the March 3 edition of the newspaper SPEC . According to the hon. member, new entrants on the job market in the Gaspé Peninsula could be eligible for benefits after 700 hours of work, whereas Bill C-111 clearly stipulates that a new entrant will have to work 910 hours to become eligible for employment insurance benefits.

Unless it is assumed that our region is already no longer part of Canada, which is not the case, misinforming the public for partisan purposes has no place in a matter that is so crucial to the future of a region. The member should withdraw his statement as soon as possible or the minister should announce changes to the program.

[Petitions, March 6th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I will be brief, since there are many wishing to speak today.

I take pride in joining with several colleagues in presenting a petition bearing 94,000 names, at least 2,000 of those from the riding of Gaspé. The petitioners are calling upon the government to take steps to enable Québec Téléphone to have access to a broadcasting licence. This is essential for the economic development of Quebec. Despite its foreign ownership, Québec Téléphone is managed by Quebecers and the language of work is French. Québec Téléphone is an needed agent of regional development.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, this is an excellent question and also an excellent opportunity provided to me by the hon. member for Lévis.

I jotted down some notes. In the Gaspé Peninsula, the working population currently stands at about 43 per cent. This means that only four persons in ten are working or actively looking for work. This is a very serious situation. It means that out of 10 people who are of labour force age only 4.3 actually work.

This gives you an idea of why there is so much discontent right now. What can these people turn to? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Moreover, let me repeat that, given the financial implications of the speech from the throne, we can anticipate a 10 per cent cut.

Since the Gaspé area, including the Magdalen Islands, gets something like $170 million under the unemployment insurance program, a 10 per cent cut means $17 million less in the region's economy. This is in addition to the reform made to the costs of fishing permits, which was implemented by the former minister and which the new minister intends to maintain. The minister hopes to get some $50 million from the fishermen's pockets with that.

The Gaspé Peninsula accounts for about 10 per cent of Canada's fish harvesting. Ten per cent of $50 million is another five million. In other words, we are in deep s-, up to our necks, and this is the moment the government chooses to take $22 million out of our region.

You can see why people in the Gaspé Peninsula and on the Magdalen Islands are upset. Seals are not the only ones looking for food; people are hungry too. They want to work, but they get no offers.

So, what do they do? They show their discontent. Wherever we meet them, they tell us: "We want to work". But what is there for them? Nothing. It must be understood that these people have been told to wait and wait, that they are alone to face the big federal machine. At present, they have forum to get their message across to the government.

It is easy to say that the minister will organize public hearings, but the closest one that was proposed, and that was a video conference, was in Rimouski. It takes half a day to drive from the Gaspé Peninsula to Rimouski. This is a lack of respect toward people who are supposed to live off UI benefits, who are being bled dry, and who will lose another 10 per cent which, as I said earlier, amounts to $22 million.

Time is running out and so are people's hopes. Those who live in the Gaspé Peninsula are proud people, like those who live in your region, but the government must understand that the fate of these regions is in its hands. If the minister really wants to go forward with that reform, he should at least be man enough to say: "I am putting a stop to that. I am imposing a moratorium". Until the unemployment rate goes down, the minister should shelve his reform. This is the message that people from the Gaspé region asked me to convey to the minister.

[Speech From The Throne, March 5th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I do not wish to ruin the day for those who are watching us on television, but I have bad news for this House, as well as for the people of Quebec and of Canada.

I would like to divide my reply to the throne speech into three phases.

The first thing that struck me was how the Prime Minister seems to be haunted by the last referendum. I think that he has not yet grasped that federalism won, that the message being sent was that real changes were needed, but that, for now, people expected that we would deal with the economy while trying to let old wounds heal, wounds that were still raw when we came back here in November. The expectation was that the House would renew its efforts on the economy.

But no, the Prime Minister seems to have made Canadian unity his priority, while it was not one, not a problem, at the beginning of the government's mandate. I wonder. How could public confidence be gained? I do not think the throne speech has succeeded in making people feel more secure, even if there are references at various places to safety and security, whether environmental, individual, or international. I do not think the government is managing to make people feel any more secure, because it is not saying what the people want to hear.

But since it seems intent on talking about it, I am not in the least ashamed to show my colours in the matter. What about those three little points they passed before the holidays: the distinct society, a form of decentralization-for when, I do not know-and veto rights? We know where all that got them. No one wants to hear any more about it. Reference is made to a distinct society, but the attitude we had adopted, and which we maintain, is that this was not enough and, even, that the proposal made to us was hollow.

I tell myself that I am perhaps still naive, that I perhaps do not understand everything, that there is perhaps something hidden there I will have to understand at some point. But reading the papers yesterday, we could see that the new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Stéphane Dion, is thinking exactly the same thing we are: the distinct society is meaningless.

He said as much in black and white using the new terminology borrowed now by the government-security-with the aim of reassuring people from Vancouver attending the conference. I cannot wait to see Mr. Dion come and repeat that to the people of Quebec, who were expecting real change. He is saying in black and white that this is not important, that it means nothing and that we should not be concerned with it.

He was talking to a strongly federalist audience-they are allowed-but he was telling them what they wanted to hear, and it is not what Quebec wants. It provides no security for the people of Quebec to hear a discordant speech like that, something that is supposed to bring back unification, but that is meaningless.

The other minor point I would like to make in the debate on the throne speech, still on the subject of the referendum and the fear of the sovereignty movement, is the possibility of the federal government holding a referendum. I would like to advise my colleagues in the House right off and advise the government that never will Quebecers, at least the people in my riding, allow the Government of Canada to tell them what to do or to impose its will.

What they expected after losing the referendum was real change. We have accepted defeat. People have come to me and said: "Yvan, we were not with you, but we hope there will be change. If there is no real change, however, have no fear, we will be behind you".

So, this is a signal and I hope the government will understand. It could be said they are working to help us, when we are really trying at the moment to find a period of calm. We are really trying to build what could be a partnership between two peoples living together in this huge space. I have no problem with the name Canada. What I want is for us to be able to do what we want in our own territory, to be sovereign in our territory.

I am going to speed up, because I would like to talk a bit about the economy. What do we find in this speech regarding the economy? Try as I may, I cannot find much to reassure us. On the contrary, I see disturbing things. With regard to an effective social safety net, the people in my riding were wondering about the status of UI reform since Parliament had been prorogued. I told them that they could continue to demonstrate in an organized manner, without disrupting their neighbours' lives while still showing their dissatisfaction.

I told them the government would set out its agenda in the throne speech and that the Minister of Finance would put figures on the government proposals a week later-as we will hear in tomorrow's budget speech. It is clearly written here that the government will ensure the UI bill will reflect conditions in the labour market while respecting the fiscal parameters of proposed reforms.

In other words, the status quo. We expect the new Minister of Human Resources Development to fully review this bill, as the Minister of Finance has indicated that fiscal parameters would represent cuts of at least 10 per cent. The die has been cast. All that can happen this winter are cosmetic changes. Is this what I am to understand?

In this case, the people in my riding have a right to be concerned and to continue to demonstrate. We had already suggested that the government should go after family trusts and urge all Canadians to pay their fair share of taxes.

Allow me to quote a few lines from the speech made by our leader, the hon. member for Roberval: "Total profits for the five major banks reached $4.9 billion, but 2,800 jobs were cut". This is shocking. If the government is looking for a new source of tax revenue, it should start there.

"GM Canada reported record profits of $1.4 billion, while at the same time laying off 2,500 employees-Bell Canada recorded profits of $502 million, but also eliminated 3,200 jobs". There is nothing reassuring about this if large corporations like these are really interested in short term profits.

Madam Speaker, you are indicating to me that my time is almost up, but I am sure some members will want to ask me questions so that I can elaborate.

It is not by threatening to retaliate against companies that do not comply-I think that, in the budget speech, the government should show its true colours right away and raise new taxes to ensure that the burden is distributed equally.

In conclusion, there is nothing new in the throne speech, except that the government has made Canadian unity a priority, when everyone is asking it to tackle our economic problems. What I find most outrageous is that they prorogued Parliament, but for what? They are already talking about reinstating the old bills. The government should really do its homework, listen to the people and work on the economy.

[Committees Of The House, March 4th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, allow me to be the first member to make reference to your presence as the new Deputy Speaker of this House.

In response to the representative of the Reform Party, I must state that I am somewhat astonished to see in this House today that the Reform Party is concerned about will form the official Opposition and who will be vice-chairs, when we will be engaged this week in a debate of the highest importance on the budget speech. I must say that I would have expected instead that the members of this House would have focussed their energies, or husbanded their energies, for addressing the real problems Canada is facing, that is the attitude the Liberals across the way have taken toward managing the debt. In this connection, I believe that the two parties on this side can combine their actions to force the government to move, or

at least to reflect. But I have trouble understanding how there can be a drawn out debate on the choice of vice-chairs.

I thought Canada operated according to a certain tradition, with this or that responsibility for the official Opposition. That this was normal and that was how we operated.

As far as I am concerned, I can tell you that being from Quebec , yes, and I have nothing to hide in this regard, being a representative of the Bloc Quebecois, I defend a certain ideology, whether certain people like it or not, and it is important for the rest of Canada to know that. If we have become the Official Opposition and have certain related responsibilities to assume, that is not our choice but how democracy works. So I have difficulty understanding why there is this protracted debate. It seems to me to be superfluous.

Once again, as Mr. Bouchard himself has said in this House, perhaps the Reform Party is short on ambition. Rather than focussing on becoming the official Opposition, rather than seeking what goes along with that position, they ought instead to be seeking to combat the true scourge here, in other words attacking the Liberals, the Government. But no. It might be said that they have set their sights too low.

I would like to again express my astonishment on this, but this time about both sides.

While the third party in the House tries to diminish the importance of the work of the official opposition by saying that you do not have to be a member of the official opposition to be vice-chairman in this House, the new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs-I think I am allowed to mention his name since he has not been elected yet, Stéphane Dion-says: "The distinct society status is not really a special status and will not bring any special powers".

The third party in the House says that the official opposition does not really have the attributes of the official opposition. At the same time, a government spokesperson says that what was voted on before Christmas does not really mean what it means.

So allow me to express my surprise as a member of the Bloc Quebecois and to ask: How is it that the bills that were voted on do not mean what they mean? How is it that the attributes of the official opposition, such as the office of vice-chairman, do not necessary apply because we are the official opposition? Maybe the time has come to tackle the real issue, to call a spade a spade, to go back to the basics, to look at who built Canada, that is the notion of two founding peoples, to try to understand and to respect the rules.

There are a lot of things I do not agree with in the way Canada is run, but I respect the rules. I hope that the third party in the House will respect the rules also and that we will close this debate which, I must say, I find totally useless. I hope we can get on with what is important, that is to prepare our response to the budget speech.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 13th, 1995]

No, but I would like to remind the hon. member that if he still reads Quebec newspapers, he will realize that hardly 24 per cent of the population of Quebec believes that the Prime Minister's proposals are a response to their expectations.

So if we are talking about barely 24 per cent, I think we still have the right to rise in the House to say: "Listen, this is an empty shell". And we must not forget the 94 per cent of Quebecers voted in the last referendum. I will conclude with this. This means that in Quebec, 9.4 out of 10 understood the question. And I do not understand why the Quebecer from Saint-Maurice did not.

[Constitutional Amendments Act, December 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I believe we have only five minutes left in the debate this afternoon, and I will try to be brief. It may be the last time we have a chance to speak this year. I listened carefully to the hon. member for Vaudreuil, who raised quite a few points. He is also aware of the position of the Bloc Quebecois on the veto.

I may recall that from what I read and what I heard from the Minister of Justice, this is not a constitutional veto but a veto for the guidance of the Parliament of Canada. That is why Quebecers realized this was not what they wanted. I may also recall that what we say in this House reflects the views of the Quebec people.

I may remind the hon. member-