Yvan Bernier

[Employment Insurance Act, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I had no intention whatsoever of implying that the Chair wants us to do certain things. But if I had the right to make a ten minutes speech, I thought I would also have the right to comment after the ten minutes granted to the other member.

This was to make our work interactive in the House: questions, answers. That allows us to understand certain things.

In my opinion, what Standing Order 73 does, if you will allow me to say so, is gag us.

[Employment Insurance Act, December 11th, 1995]

We have been gagged. That is the new way of doing things. It means that the government does not go only after the victims, but also after the members who represent the victims, as my colleague for Portneuf put it.

I am not pleased, but rather deeply saddened to rise today to speak on a bill which is so tough on the unemployed, on the jobless. Instead of tackling the problems and trying to find work for the people who live in the regions, the government is going after what little they have left.

What is this bill all about? As we say in French, and especially in my region of Gaspé, it is first and foremost a deficit insurance plan for the government, since it would save about $5 billion. It is not the jobless who will benefit from this, but the government. So, first and foremost, the reform proposed by the minister is a kind of insurance program for him, for his deficit, and not an employment insurance system, as he would have us believe.

I was regional critic for the Bloc Quebecois this last year, and I still am, unless changes are made, and the people in areas like the Gaspé Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands are being dealt a double blow by this bill, since the vast majority of the unemployed in these areas are seasonal unemployed. One of the first measures that will be applied by the government is the 1 per cent penalty for recurring unemployment. This means that each time an unemployed person in our regions receives UI benefits for a period of 20 weeks-20 weeks, not a year-that person is given a 1 per cent penalty applicable to his or her future benefits. That hurts.

Then, when you look at how the system works, we know the present rate of benefits is 55 per cent of the gross salary. This means that, once they have accumulated five periods of 20 weeks of UI benefits, these persons will no longer get 55 per cent of their gross salary, but 50 per cent. That hurts, and is discriminatory. It is not their fault if they work in an area that has to follow the seasons. But, nevertheless, they will get a 5 per cent penalty. That is one thing.

Also, benefits are calculated not only based on the number of hours, but also based on the number of qualifying weeks. First, the benefits will be divided by 14 and subsequently, in 1997 or 1998 I think, they will be divided by 16.

This means that if I manage to accumulate the required 420 hours in a period of 10 weeks, the total amount of benefits I am entitled to will be calculated and divided by 14, as if I had accumulated the required number of hours over a period of 14 weeks.

That is another reduction of the UI benefits to which these unemployed people would normally be entitled. What should we think of that?

But the funniest thing or should I say the saddest thing about this-and I am sure all the people from the Gaspé Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands who are listening to this will demand an explanation from their member opposite-from what I understand-and I hope someone will be able to give me an answer at some point-the 420 hour minimum requirement must be met within a period of 14 weeks. Let us take for example a worker in a lobster plant in our area of the Gaspé Peninsula, who works mainly in May and June.

Suppose this worker manages to accumulate only 400 hours over this work period. According to the rules, he or she must accumulate 20 hours more in order to become eligible.

If that worker is unlucky and cannot find work for his last 20 hours before fall, let us say September or October, what will happen between the end of his first job, in June, and the beginning of his new job, at the end of September? He will be out of work and will receive no benefits of any kind.

I have read the regulations and, from what I understand, the UI commission will calculate like this: let us suppose he worked 20 hours at-I will be generous-$20 an hour, that makes $200 during that period. When the number of hours of work reaches 420, the amount earned is averaged over the last 14 weeks. Since the worker in my example did not work in July and August, because he lives in area where work is seasonal, his earnings during his qualifying period would be $200 and it is that amount that would be divided by 14. What, then, would be the amount of his benefits? It would be $1.25 or something like that. This is unspeakable.

I hope that I am wrong and that my office will receive a fax telling me that I made a mistake. I just hope that we can at least make the minister and the deputy ministers who came up with this scheme understand that in areas like the Gaspé and the Islands, where people need unemployment benefits to make ends meet, they are very edgy about these changes to the program. People try very hard, but nature imposes its work schedules on humans.

Mr. Speaker, did you ever try to go strawberry picking or lobster fishing when there is three feet of ice? It is not easy. What can we do? Should we ask our viewers across Canada to give up strawberries and lobster forever, because people are no longer be able to stay in their region for lack of unemployment insurance benefits, and have to move and find other jobs? Is that the message?

I am afraid we will see some trades and occupations disappear because they are limited to some periods of the year. This is unthinkable unless, once again, the member for Gaspé is wrong.

Is the Minister of Human Resources Development keeping a bargaining chip up his sleeve? I have not yet seen what regulatory amendments the Governor in Council can make in the area of unemployment for fishermen and seasonal workers and I do not know if he can make some other changes. However, the core, the basis of this bill is a slap on the wrist right from the start.

I cannot believe how fast time is going by this afternoon. But in the main, I have made my point. Canadians and Quebecers must be wary. The minister is proposing a very fundamental change, and he is the first one to dip into the pot of this insurance which I call the deficit insurance. I ask the minister to protect the lives of those who live in the regions.

[Employment Insurance Act, December 11th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, is it my turn for debate? Ten minutes? I thought I could put questions to my colleague opposite.

[Recognition Of Quebec As A Distinct Society, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I know this is a solemn day and, if I may say, it is the day of awakening for Canada. This awakening has been triggered by the resolution introduced by the Prime Minister. I must admit that I find it rather amusing. Since our arrival here two years ago we have been called all sorts of things. The favourite nickname given to us is separatists, but after two years this government finally gave birth to this resolution which is meaningless, in our view.

Why is this resolution meaningless? Why are the members opposite surprised by our reaction, by our position on all this? I am astonished. Actually, I think I understand. When the Prime Minister says he does not listen to Radio-Canada because he wants a good night's sleep, he has deprived himself of a good source of information. If the Prime Minister had listened to all the media without distinction in Quebec and if he had read all of the newspapers, he would already know that Quebec has already stated loud and clear what it wants.

What we see here today is no response to that. And one should not be surprised. Some of my colleagues from the Atlantic region understand pretty well what I mean because I have been telling them for two years what sovereignty is all about and what the difference between a sovereignist and a separatist is. This is the period for questions and comments, but I think I will focus on comments tonight.

I have been explaining to them for two years the difference between a sovereignist and a separatist. Mr. Speaker, you were here when the issue was raised in this House and I told the House what Quebec wants to be, because if you want to inform people you have to repeat the message people wish to convey. This is why I had explained that a sovereignist is someone who is able to assert and accept himself.

I believe they understood in part what it means to be a sovereignist or to assert oneself. My honourable colleagues have even used the expression in a bill, which says that Canada wants to affirm its sovereignty over its oceans. I have nothing against that, but we have been blamed for two years for using the same expression.

What are we to think when the members opposite try to scold us? We have been told that the regional commissions on the future of Quebec were phoney. They have once more deprived themselves of an incomparable source of information. Mr. Speaker, I can see that you are getting impatient. I will now stop speaking but first I wish to say that I will continue my colleagues' education on what Quebec really wants. May I add that they really did not choose the right way today.

[Prime Minister's Proposals, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as we all read in the newspapers this morning, the Prime Minister's proposals have been almost unanimously rejected by our major dailies' editorial writers and other observers. Alain Dubuc from La Presse , Michel Auger from Le Journal de Montréal , and editorial writers from Le Soleil , the Ottawa Citizen and the Ottawa Sun were not fooled by the simplistic and superficial initiatives announced by the Prime Minister on Monday.

They see them as a hastily improvised reaction, to save face, by a government incapable of delivering on the constitutional promises it made during the Quebec referendum.

The Prime Minister's proposals have been rejected in English Canada for being overly generous to Quebec, and in Quebec for falling far short of its traditional minimum demands.

This is a repeat of the response to the Charlottetown agreement, which was rejected by all parties.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, two liberal members have now interrupted my colleague. She is doing a good job.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 6th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, currently the Bloc Quebecois is the official opposition in Ottawa. Whether they like it or not, people will have to listen to what we have to say. The member for Davenport is simply filibustering.

[Oceans Act, September 26th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to put a question to the hon. member, who also sits on the standing committee on fisheries and oceans.

Allow me to disagree with the hon. member. Since I believe he is a lawyer by training, he is used to reading laws. I also know that he was rather nit-picking on that issue during the last few meetings of our committee. As regards Part II of Bill C-98, why do we have to put in law a plan that will be developed for management purposes?

I would appreciate it if the member, who seems to have a lot of experience in that field, would tell us why we must pass an act merely to introduce or announce a strategy. That could have been done in a press release. The issue would have been well presented. People would have understood. Instead, the government is sending invitations all over the place. It wants to consult just about everybody.

I also ask the member to recognize the fact that there is no hierarchy in terms of the consultation process. Indeed, the provinces are put on the same footing as any other group when it comes to consultations. We, in Quebec, do not think that this is the way to manage. How does the member, who is from Nova Scotia, think that this strategy should be managed in his province, which borders the ocean? Will the provincial minister want to have a say, at some point in time, regarding this process? This is the sort of thing we have to look at.

Right now, the government is merely presenting a strategy and saying that it is willing to consult everyone. I would appreciate it if the member could tell us which new real powers are included in this bill.

[Oceans Act, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to use the few minutes that are left to make a comment and put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

First of all, in his answer, he often referred to "our good minister of fisheries who did this and that". I would like him to focus on Bill C-98, which will become an act of Parliament.

This means that the law will still be in place even after the current minister of fisheries leaves his post. So he should not cite the current minister's popularity as the reason why things will stay the same in the future. He should be aware of that. I know that the hon. member comes from the west coast while I come from the east coast. He probably attended the meeting of fisheries ministers in Victoria last year. Since the parliamentary secretary has invited us to read the bill carefully, I would like to hear his comments on clauses 30 and 31, which provide that the provinces will be consulted only on the same basis as all other parties interested in ocean management that the department wants to consult with.

I am getting to my question. I understand that, at last year's meeting of fisheries ministers in Victoria, British Columbia was ready to take on part of the responsibilities for fisheries management, as were Newfoundland and Quebec. This is the department's first opportunity to answer publicly, and from what I understand, there is no link, no consultation hierarchy.

Is this the future of Canada, all interested parties on an equal footing while the provinces must fend for themselves? Is the parliamentary secretary endorsing this kind of attitude? I would like him to comment on this.

[Oceans Act, September 26th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the secretary of state and hon. member for Beauséjour. I have several questions but I do not know where to start. I will ask two at the same time and, time permitting, I will ask another one later on.

Now for his first comment, and I must say I find it hard to follow the federal government's thinking today. They say they needed this legislation to make the Coast Guard part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, although this was already done last spring in the finance minister's February budget. What is going on? Is the department trying to rectify an illegal situation? What was or was not illegal before? I think we could draw quite a few conclusions in that case.

I remember saying in a speech to the Minister of Fisheries at the time that he should consolidate the fleets owned by the Government of Canada. I mentioned the Coast Guard. Their ships could have been included in the same fleet with the Fisheries and Oceans vessels. But there are other fleets as well, so why the piecemeal approach?

Once again, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. As far as the ships of the Department of the Environment are concerned, why did they not look at the kind of work involved, since in this bill, for all practical purposes, the minister will have the authority to set environmental standards for oceans?

What does the Department of the Environment intend to do? I was told there were a number of ships, so what are they going to do with them? Why did they not consider integrating all this?

My point is there is still room for improving the bill. The Department of National Defence has ships as well. Why did the government not consider some kind of plan or strategy in which these ships could be used, and I am thinking of the quite spectacular operations we saw last spring?

In any case, I am glad that was done. However, why does the government not take advantage of this experience to consider a system for integrating these ships?

That is one point I wanted to make. As for part III of the bill, I already mentioned two departments that were not consulted. What is going on? I wish the secretary of state would tell us. Where are they headed and do they really intend to merge? Good, I see some messages coming. Do they really intend to merge or is this just a lot of smoke and mirrors?

I repeat, the Coast Guard fleet has been under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries since the spring budget. I would like to put a question to the secretary of state, who may be able to remove this perception I have that the bill is improvised, that the government is going a little too fast and has not finished its consultations, starting with the parliamentarians in their own party.

I would like to draw the secretary of state's attention back to clause 54. In formulating this bill, they are already including conditional amendments in clause 54, which provides: "If Bill C-84, introduced during-the thirty-fifth Parliament-is assented to, then-". Should I read the whole thing? We are told that this bill will have consequences, and given that, attention will have to be paid to this and to that.

Bill C-98 involves regulations, and must be able to accommodate other existing regulations and legislation. But we already have C-84, which is in the process of changing it. They could not even agree among themselves to wait for C-84 to be drafted.

In connection with this, I would like to mention another doubt. I will read you subclause 54(3): "Any fee fixed under this Act shall stand permanently referred to a committee described in section 25 of the Regulations Act to be scrutinized as if it were a regulation".

I would like to direct a question to the secretary of state to at least start getting rid of our perception that the thing is improvised. Can he tell us who will form the committee? Does he already have the answers this morning? There are a whole bunch of amendments, but I would at least like to know whether he has had time to read the bill to the end and ask these questions and whether he got an answer from an official somewhere. We did not.