Lost his last election, in 1997, with 43% of the vote.
Job Creation June 12th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, despite the answer I just received, does the minister not realize that, as a result of this government's first 18 months in power, the unemployment rate in Quebec still hovers around 11 per cent, the employment level has not moved in six months, 50,000 more people are on welfare, and thousands of unemployed workers do not qualify for UI benefits?
Job Creation June 12th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
We are now witnessing a disturbing slowdown of the economy. The GDP has been falling for the last two months. On Friday, we learned that employment growth remains stalled. In fact, there has been no net job creation in the last six months.
Since some 23 per cent of the Quebec workforce is now unemployed, does the Minister of Human Resources Development not agree that the Liberal job creation policy is a dismal failure and a glaring example of inaction?
Summit On Private Forests June 8th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, Bloc members wish to draw the attention of the House to the excellent dialogue that took place during the summit on private forests chaired by Quebec's Minister of Natural Resources, François Gendron.
The conference provided an opportunity for exchange and consensus on future policy directions. Indeed, representatives showed an exemplary sense of responsibility.
They agreed on the way funds to be contributed by the Quebec government and other stakeholders would be distributed under Quebec's private forest development plan.
The parties also agreed that the federal government must compensate the Quebec workers who are hard hit by its withdrawal from the sector. Here again, through their dynamism and their solidarity, Quebecers in the various regions must make up for the failure of the federal government to honour its commitments.
Budget Implementation Act, 1995 June 5th, 1995
moved:
Motion No. 68
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 68.
Motion No. 69
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 69.
Motion No. 70
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 70.
Motion No. 71
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 71.
Motion No. 72
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 72.
Motion No. 73
That Bill C-76 be amended by deleting Clause 73.
Budget Implementation Act, 1995 June 5th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the House for allowing me to discuss motions from the last group: the six motions moved by my colleague from Châteauguay. These motions are aimed at preventing the government from slashing veterans' grants and allowances programs.
Need I remind the federal government that veterans are under its responsibility? Yet, I think that the government is abandoning some of its obligations and commitments toward them, despite some historical and solemn promises.
Support to poor people, widows and senior citizens is already being cut. The government knows very well that these cuts merely
shift these needs for assistance to other public services, both federal and provincial. The only real savings that can result from this operation will be in the envelope for Veterans Affairs Canada.
As usual, the government will have succeeded in passing the bill on to other federal departments or to the provinces. We agree with the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who had also moved amendments in this regard.
His amendments are totally in line with the Bloc Quebecois's efforts to oppose this government's proposed attack against veterans. We are therefore calling for the deletion of certain clauses affecting veterans, including clause 42, which amends the Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act.
This amendment starts the gradual elimination of the benefits allowing the children of deceased veterans to pursue their studies. There are not thousands of them. This does not affect 6 million Canadians. Only 85 orphans currently receive these benefits. With one or two exceptions, they are the children of deceased members of the military who had the courage to participate in Canadian peacekeeping missions.
The government is quick to act in this matter but very slow to do anything about family trusts and big business, for example. The government will now take away from these people, whose fathers died while serving their country, what may be their only chance to get an education.
Under Bill C-76, those students who were receiving these benefits on budget day will continue to receive them, but the department will no longer take applications although some students might be eligible. In 1993-94, this program cost only $315,000. So this is the finance minister's great initiative. Not only does he attack the most vulnerable, but he now goes after the children of those who lost their lives while serving their country. What for? To save a drop in this ocean of expenditures. What is $315,000 in a budget of an amount you know as well as I do.
Clauses 68 to 72 inclusively amend the War Veterans Allowance Act to discontinue the payment of allowances to veterans who served with the resistance. These provisions also provide for the phasing out of allowances awarded to allied veterans who immigrated to Canada after their service and resided in Canada for a period of at least ten years before applying for government assistance. This is another stupid initiative that will save very little money, while making life impossible for them when applying for allowances or even welfare.
Clauses 68 and 71 also repeal provisions so that allied veterans who immigrate to Canada after their service will no longer be eligible for these allowances. This amounts to a pure and simple cut. Under clause 69, allowances will no longer be paid to at least 3,000 veterans. At the same time, this clause will have the effect of taking allowances away from another 1,000 resistance veterans whose old age security and CPP benefits place just above the normal threshold for certain health benefits, just at the limit.
This will affect some 4,000 individuals, two thirds of whom live in Quebec. Today, they are told as offhandedly as can be to go and stand in line for other social programs from now on. The message is that they are no longer recognized by Veterans Affairs Canada and that barely making it back was not good enough.
The government is showing them that it has no respect for the sacrifice they made. Sure, you may argue that, since the Minister of Finance is not a veteran, he cannot really understand what goes on or what these people are going through. However, if he spent some time in a theatre of operations, as a participant and not merely a spectator, he might review his bill immediately upon his return here.
This federal abdication of responsibilities toward our veterans is yet another example of the arrogance displayed by this government. It also shows why we have to get out of that system. The government cannot keep to its word; it goes all out against the poor, while looking after the interests of its friends. It will never manage to eliminate its huge deficit with such a policy. Of the more than 4,000 people affected by these measures, I ask the two thirds who live in Quebec to think about this when the time comes to choose between the status quo, represented by a centralist and controlling federalism, and the sovereignty of a normal country, for a normal people, which will recognize their rights.
International Day Of Families May 15th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, today, on the International Day of Families, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to emphasize the importance of this primary social unit for each and every one of us.
Many believe that the family is the place where the individual is formed, for better or for worse. That is why it is so important to aim for more equality in our society, and I mean not only equal opportunities but also some basic equality in living conditions.
In 1993, more than one million families in Canada were living below the poverty line. For us as elected representatives, this should be a day to reflect on what we hope to achieve in this House and how we can improve the lives of families in Quebec and Canada.
Cn Commercialization Act May 15th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-89 which, as we know, will have the effect of privatizing Canadian National.
This bill will also determine the mechanism that will be used by the government to implement the process. As soon as the legislation is passed, CN will no longer be a crown corporation. It will become a business corporation.
When I began to examine this bill, I soon realized that some of its clauses were cause for concern.
Clause 6 of the bill allows the transfer of CN property to the government. Under this clause, the government will be able to take possession of CN affiliates and real estate not directly related to the railway sector.
We also know that the minister made it clear he wanted CN to keep only those assets directly related to rail transport. Assets related to other sectors will be privatized separately.
I would like to take as an example the intermodal station in the riding of Jonquière, next door to my own riding. If the station is closed, all freight will be transferred to Quebec's highway network, more specifically the highway through the Parc des Laurentides wildlife reserve.
We know the Minister of Transport has no long term policy for the road network, which means that the entire road network in Quebec will be penalized. Safety will be a casualty as well. People will have to cope with larger numbers of heavy trucks on our roads.
To me, this clause rang some alarm bells. We know that CN affiliates include businesses that are not in very good financial shape but still manage to do the job thanks to CN.
One wonders whether these businesses will be viable without CN and whether they will maintain the same employment levels. Will these levels be maintained? I think this is a very important question.
Eighteen months ago, throughout the election campaign, the Prime Minister's main platform was creating jobs for the people of this country. Eighteen months later, we see this promise was not kept. Even worse, in the last budget the Minister of Finance failed to include measures for direct job creation. I would even
go so far as to say that the budget's impact will be the reverse of what was promised in the red book.
In my riding, things are very bad, with over 30 per cent of the population on unemployment insurance or welfare. Of this group, a number of people have decided to give up looking for jobs. They have stopped looking for jobs because there are none. We are gradually killing off an entire generation.
Jobs in CN affiliates must be guaranteed so that we do not get thousands more unemployed people looking for jobs. This is particularly crucial when we realize that this government is doing little or nothing to deal with this problem.
The Prime Minister seems to have forgotten the golden rule which says that when you are the boss, never take on a task your assistant will not be able to do. Let me explain. Clearly, neither the Minister of Labour nor the Minister of Finance are in a position to keep the government's promise that it would put people back to work and provide for economic recovery.
CN itself has concerns about this bill. I will take the specific example of AMF Technotransport Inc. of Montreal, which employs 1,300 people but, on its own, without the support of CN, it may get into financial difficulty, which will add to the unemployment statistics of the province.
Again, this bill does not contain any provision to protect jobs in subsidiaries. This could be very dangerous, leading to jobs cuts, layoffs and perhaps even businesses closing down. We cannot afford this kind of luxury.
Another clause that would require further consideration is clause 8. My colleagues mentioned it earlier, but I would like to address it anyway, particularly as regards paragraph 5, which, as it stands, authorizes a foreign group of corporations which are associates to acquire majority control of CN.
The only thing that stands in the way of an effective takeover in such circumstances under this clause is the judgment of the CN board of directors, which they have shown in negotiations, and collective bargaining in particular, with employees at every level. Collective agreements were signed that were considered generous at the time, but then the company only tried to take these hard won rights away from the workers later on. They tried to do so by seeking legislation like the bills that were brought before this House a few months ago. Knowing how much common sense the CN directors responsible for determining whether the corporations in the owners group are complying with their statutory declaration not to act in concert really have, I doubt this can be achieved.
Everybody knows that corporations are guided first and foremost by the interests of their shareholders, and that is absolutely normal. So, if the corporations that own CN all have the same shareholders, they do not need to act in concert to act along the same lines. It is therefore essential that clause 8 be amended.
Need I remind you that this railway system was built with money provided by the taxpayers of Canada and Quebec? It would be unacceptable for control over a railway in which billions of dollars of public money were invested to be lost to Canadians and that CN traffic be redirected toward U.S. rail systems.
Finally, at a time when the provinces are asking the federal government to give them more flexibility and to withdraw more and more from certain jurisdictions, clause 16 authorizes the federal government to interfere in a wide variety of provincial jurisdictions through short-line railways.
In closing I would like to add that these entities should be protected so that they can be sold to private sector enterprises, but enterprises truly owned by Canadians and Quebecers.
Quebec Finance Minister's Budget May 11th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, unlike his federal counterpart, the Quebec finance minister decided to tackle the deficit in his very first budget. In just one year, he will reduce Quebec's deficit by one third. By comparison, the Liberals only managed to reduce the federal deficit by 10 per cent with their first budget. The cuts in transfers to the provinces announced in last February's federal budget will deprive Quebec of $650 million in 1996-97 and $1.9 billion in 1997-98. Yet, the finance minister has the nerve to criticize Quebec's budget.
Did the federal Minister of Finance spend the first year of his mandate trying to figure out how he was going to tackle the federal deficit, only to come up with this idea of offloading it onto the provinces?
Supply May 2nd, 1995
Madam Speaker, of course the official opposition does not need the advice of anybody in this House. In his comment, the member said that he did not want to create categories of people who are more educated or less educated than others. Only the provinces can give these kinds of assurances to their people and guarantee them that there will not be different categories within the system. Everybody should clean up their own backyard.
The Quebec Liberal Party wants a decentralized federalism, it wants the federal government to give the provinces, particularly Quebec, all the tools they need to govern themselves, whereas, in this House, members of the Liberal government are trying to stop progress in its tracks. I wonder who in this House wants to create different categories. The answer is simple: it is the members opposite with a federalism that they are not even willing to renew.
Supply May 2nd, 1995
Madam Speaker, this motion tabled this morning by the Leader of the Official Opposition is the kind of motion which would bother the people across the way, as it makes a major amendment to the budget which, as it stands, literally spells disaster for Quebec.
The measures contained in the budget, especially for the next three years, does neither Canadians nor Quebecers any good.
This budget is nothing but smoke and mirrors, the effects of which we will see, of course, in two or three years. The Minister of Finance claims this is how Canadian federalism can be renewed. I think that he is going about it the wrong way. One thing is sure in all this: Quebec must get out of this system on the double. This government does not have the courage to announce before the referendum the specific measures hiding behind this budget. It takes advantage of the situation and better enjoy it while it can because I suggest this is the last year that a government which does nothing good for Quebec will debate to help itself to $29 billion of Quebec taxpayers hard-earned money year after year after year.
Once again, the official opposition is offering the Liberal government an opportunity to correct this unacceptable situation, a situation caused by one of their own, namely the Minister of Finance, who should really be called minister of family trusts or minister of large corporations.
The Minister of Finance expects this whole budget charade to climax after the referendum. Unfortunately for him, there will be no time for his scenario to come to a conclusion because, after the referendum, Quebec will be a sovereign state.
Between 1977 and 1994, Quebec has seen its federal transfer payments for health, education and welfare drop from 47 per cent to 37 per cent, as Liberal and Conservative governments succeeded one another in this place, passing the puck back and forth but essentially pursuing the same policies. This year again, the Liberal government is continuing the work of the Conservatives by reducing social transfers by up to 28 per cent. This translate into a shortfall of nearly $2 billion for the Government of Quebec. That is unacceptable and wrong.
In 1983-84, federal transfers accounted for 29 per cent of Quebec's budget revenues. In 1997-98, they will account for a meagre 12 per cent.
Although several initiatives included in the budget provide for a withdrawal of federal financial support, the federal government will interfere even more in the areas of health, post-secondary education and social assistance which, as you know, Madam Speaker, come under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. This is a shame.
Once again, the cuts announced in the recent budget will directly hit the poor. As is customary for the Liberals, the budget measures will not affect the well-to-do, because this would harm the Liberals' good financial relations. However, these measures will affect those who barely have enough to survive, and I mean survive, not live.
Quebec's finance minister, Jean Campeau, estimates that the cuts in transfers to the provinces will result in the federal contribution to social programs going down from 37.8 per cent to 28.5 per cent, over a two year period, that is in 1997 and 1998. The federal government just keeps offloading on to the provinces.
Last week, it was also revealed by the Canadian Council on Social Development that 17.6 per cent of Quebec families live below the poverty line. That rate is the highest in the country. This is a concrete result of a sick federalism which simply does not want to evolve. Also last week, we learned that 800,000 Quebecers have to rely on social assistance. Again, this is a consequence of federalism.
Premier Parizeau himself referred to that all time record as a national catastrophe. Why is that? It is because this government did not fulfil its red book commitment to create jobs. During the Liberal convention held last weekend, the Prime Minister even had the nerve to say that unemployment should be everyone's priority. However, with the red book, with so many promises, including some by the Minister of Finance, absolutely nothing is being done. No concrete measure was announced in the budget to put Canadians back to work.
Even the labour minister does all sorts of things, except find stable and lasting ways to allow Canadians to work without losing their dignity in the process. In fact, the minister's first action here was to pounce on workers. If the government wants, once and for all, to tackle the issues of duplication and unemployment, it should immediately withdraw from all areas
which come under provincial jurisdiction and give to the provinces the federal taxes representing the equivalent amounts. This is a simple, easy and efficient way of doing it.
Madam Speaker, since my time is up, I will conclude by saying that the electoral platform of this government included a commitment to put Canadians back to work. After 18 months in office, it is now obvious that the government is unable to fulfil that promise. Consequently, it should leave that responsibility to governments which are competent, which are close to the public and which can take action. I am referring of course to the provincial governments, including the Quebec government.
I ask all the members of this House to denounce the will of the federal government to restrict the provinces to the role of mere advisers by imposing on them new national standards for social programs.
Our constituents sent us here to protect their interests. Let us not disappoint them. Let us act, in all conscience, to ensure their well-being. Let us say no to this offloading of $7 billion on to the provinces.