René Canuel

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to my hon. colleague's presentation. She is very concerned with helping young people pursue their education; she is a teacher and I was one too. Everyone agrees with this. The situation of a 20- or 21-year old student who has not yet found a job and has accumulated between $25,000 and $30,000 in debts is truly difficult. It makes no sense and I agree.

However, everyone knows that, in Quebec, we have had a grants and loans system for 30 years. Why add to something that already exists in Quebec and is extremely well managed? This is a relatively simple situation. Had the government agreed to give money, say 25%, back to the Quebec Ministry of Education, our young people would still have received the money and their debt load would have been lighter. That is what we want. I hope my hon. colleague will address this aspect in her answer. I agree with the objective, but not with the way it is achieved.

This budget is touted as a wonderful thing. Last year, I sat on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. We did some work on rural areas. In my riding of Matapédia—Matane, we have fishers, foresters and farmers. These are the three main classes of workers in my riding.

Unfortunately, most of their jobs are seasonal jobs. Some of these people need another 10, 20 or 30 weeks of work to qualify for employment insurance. As you know, new claimants are required to accumulate 910 hours of work. It is nearly impossible for fishers to accumulate 910 hours of work.

Forestry workers in my region are as proud and hard-working as anyone else in Quebec. Sometimes, they are short a few hours. There are people in my riding who lost their homes.

This is supposed to be a wonderful, an extraordinary budget. Come and tell the people in my region that this is a wonderful, an extraordinary budget, that there is hope. No. The rural community had suggested that a department of rural development be established, but I, as the Bloc Quebecois spokesperson, said: “No, let us not complicate things and cause further duplication; let us just invest in agriculture”.

Here is my question to the hon. member: Can she tell me if there is anything in this budget for fishers, farmers and foresters? That is my question.

[Canada Labour Code, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of clarification from my hon. colleague.

I would say that a lockout or a strike is serious enough as it is. I cannot understand why there is no provision in this Bill C-19 to prevent the employer from hiring replacement workers. When there are disputes, sometimes, there is violence. In Quebec, we have antiscab legislation prohibiting the replacement of strikers.

I wonder why a similar provision was not included in this bill, so that workers cannot be replaced while on strike. I think this would make the rules of the game clearer. This would prevent acts of violence. It would prevent outbursts of anger and fights.

[Supply, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments made by my two colleagues, one from the Reform Party and the other from the NDP, and I see two worlds. One is the capitalist world so aptly described by my colleague from the NDP, which is heartless and would have us take as much as we can out of the pockets of the poor.

Let me give you an example. There was a report in yesterday's Le Soleil about a family of five in Rivière-à-Martre, in my riding, that had lost their home. This happened just recently. This is not a hypothetical case. They lost their home because someone did not have enough hours to qualify for employment insurance, which to me will always remain poverty insurance. This morning's Le Soleil reports the case of a lady in Carleton who also lost her home. These are facts.

My hon. colleague from the NDP said that banks are allowed to make billions while the government is withdrawing from everything. Would he agree that—incidentally I congratulate him on his speech—when we try to help out a small business, there is so much red tape and government standards are so high that we end up doing more harm than good. I would like to hear what he has to say about this.

[Ice Storm, February 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec and parts of Ontario and the Maritimes were hit by an ice storm which left heavy damage in its wake. More than a million people were left without electricity, and consequently heat as well, for various lengths of time, in mid-January.

The people of Matapédia—Matane have a reputation for being very generous, and once again they have shown this to be true. People everywhere in my riding were quick to offer help to the victims. My thanks to the people of Matapédia—Matane for their great generosity.

There was a great feeling of solidarity among us, as there was among all the people of Quebec. My hope is that this feeling, which reached its peak during the recent emergency, will continue to flourish.

Hooray for community spirit.

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have just a short question for my Quebec colleague.

When he says there have been deficits for 25 years, and a debt has been accumulating for 25 years, it must be stated that for 16 or 17 of those years the Liberals were in power. They must admit it. It all started with Trudeau.

Second, since my colleague represents a Quebec riding, I trust that he has a bit of Quebec in his heart. I will therefore ask him a very simple little question and I would like to get a straight answer from him.

Both the Quebec government and the Bloc Quebecois are demanding $2 billion in compensation for the GST. Studies have been carried out, although the minister sometimes claims otherwise, and there ought to be $2 billion in compensation. Is the hon. member prepared, since he comes from Quebec, to claim what is merely our due, for the people of his riding, and ours as well?

[Supply, February 5th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to my colleague's shopping list of groups in society to be considered. I agree. However, his good wishes do not reach the most remote rural areas, which are still suffering.

I do not necessarily agree that the debt should be paid as soon as possible, as the Reform Party often says, because if a family is in debt for example, it has to stay in debt for a while, unfortunately, so the children can eat and go to school. It is true it costs a lot, but the family will continue to pay off its debts for a few years.

My response to my colleague is “Yes, we are doing something, but we cannot do it that way”. We want the money to be given back to the provinces through tax points or transfers. Who is in a better position to distribute the money? The provinces, of course. When I say provinces, sometimes it is the municipalities, but they have to go through the provinces.

What does the government do? It plans to put the Canadian flag on every cheque. It looks good. This is tantamount to buying votes. I would submit that anyone with compassion should not try to score political points on the backs of the less fortunate.

Why is it that, this year again, banks are posting billions of dollars in profits without anyone raising the alarm about this? Would they go bankrupt if these profits were taxed at a higher rate? No. In practical terms, this means that, in this country, instead of distributing wealth equitably, governments are letting the rich get richer as the poor get poorer.

In my riding of Matapédia—Matane, employment insurance is commonly referred to as poverty insurance, because many of my constituents will not qualify for it this year because they are 20, 30 or 40 hours short. People want to work. But because they have not accumulated enough hours to qualify for EI benefits, they are forced onto welfare and this is a blow to their dignity.

I have a question for my hon. colleague. I listened carefully to his remarks and some of them made sense. Could he not convince his colleagues to transfer this responsibility to the provinces so they can do as he suggested, but much more efficiently and cost-effectively, and by staying closer to the people?

[Canada Co-Operatives Act, December 9th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague. He belongs to a co-operative. Good for him. I too belong to a co-operative, a food co-operative. As the member so eloquently said, it is rare that the House can almost unanimously support a bill.

Co-operatives are very important in our society. Fifteen or so years ago, in my region, we set up a food co-operative. Several food co-operatives were set up at the same time in Quebec, but many of them are closed now.

I know that my colleague has some good experience in this area. I put the following question to him: Why do some and even many co-operatives have trouble staying alive, surviving, and why are there so few really vigorous co-operatives in certain areas? I would like him to tell me about his experience.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc will obviously be voting against this amendment because, as my colleague has stated, we want to go much further.

I am surprised that such an amendment is being proposed today. I find this surprising, coming from the Conservatives. Why do we have to discuss this today, instead of discussing full employment?

The employment insurance, of course, should be protected; I agree. Contributions should be reduced, of course; I agree.

Why is it that in my area, in the riding of Matapédia—Matane, there are so many unemployed workers? It is because there are no jobs. Why is it that there are no jobs? It is because the Liberals, beginning with Mr. Trudeau, created such a debt for Canada—the Conservatives continued afterwards, but they slowed down a bit—that we have to earmark billions and billions of dollars every year to pay for that debt. Because of this, it is obvious that everyone is backed up against the wall.

Today, we are being told that pensions have to be protected. But when workers have almost nothing left on their pay, how do you expect them to go out and buy things? Even small businesses, which have to pay such high contributions, often have to lay off several employees, and these receive employment insurance that I would call poverty insurance, while the owners of these businesses have to work 18 or 19 hours a day.

That is the real problem. There has been poor management for 30 years, and now, they are waking up all of sudden and saying that this is most unfortunate, that this is painful and that we have to protect the elderly and also the people who, because of circumstances, have to rely on employment insurance.

At the same time, here are the Conservatives wailing and arguing that contributions have to be reduced. But it is the Conservatives and the Liberals who put us in this mess, into this gaping hole. Today, they are waking up and saying “We have to wake up”. But the Conservatives are saying that we have to wake up because they are part of the opposition. When they are in office, they say the same thing, it is more of the same, as you know full well.

Why? I have said this before and I will say it again, today. It is because their campaign coffers are full and, when they are in office, they do not even have to ask for money; it just pours into their coffers. When the Conservatives are in office, their coffers are full too and, as a result, their hands are tied.

I can tell you, we have always said we were willing to help workers. We are willing to take to the streets with them. I went to Rivière-du-Loup, Amqui and Matane, where I took to the streets with workers in the riding of Matapédia—Matane. Now we have two new RCM, Denis-Riverin and Avignon, and they are not the richest in Canada. I will be with these people because they want to work. These people have intestinal fortitude. Quite often, they are responsible for large families and have nothing. When they start working, the premiums are so high they are already strapped for cash. They cannot put a few dollars in the bank for the few months that are difficult for them.

You know, when a father works only to get his stamps and that, quite often, they are small stamps, it means abject poverty for his children. It is not because people do not want to work, you know that very well. People want to work, but there are no jobs.

When we ask the government to help small and medium businesses, there are so many factors that come into play in handing out some money that some always end up being struck off the list, and told “No, this does not match the criteria”, “No, sir”, “No, madam”, and that is the way it goes.

So, for this amendment to be ordered, if I can put it that way, by the Conservatives, it is somewhat hypocritical, I would say. They are trying to make amends. When they were in office, they should have taken some action to create jobs.

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers listening to what the Reformers are saying today can rest assured that this gives us further arguments in favour of sovereignty.

As the hon. member's colleague indicated earlier, distinct society does not mean anything to them. I am pleased to hear that. It does not mean anything, it is meaningless. I agree. They have stated in this House—and they took the entire day to say so—that it is meaningless. I must thank my colleagues from the Reform Party. They are giving the riding of Matapédia—Matane one more reason to be in favour of sovereignty.

I have a question for the hon. member. In our region, 64% voted in favour of sovereignty. What does he have to say to these people who sincerely wish for Quebec to become sovereign? What does he have to say to them today?

[Supply, November 25th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I praise the openmindedness of my colleague who was elected to the Quebec National Assembly and who saw the Meech Lake accord die. We were not able to have the Meech Lake accord agreed to, with five very acceptable conditions that were even more reasonable than what could have been expected from Quebec. Quebeckers wanted much more because they want a country.

But even then there was, I would say, a small window of opportunity, and you know how it was rejected. It truly hurts. I do not know what to call this when we see the people who came to tell Quebeckers they love them just before the referendum and when we know that these are the same people who rejected the Meech Lake accord. It is nothing but a joke.

My very experienced colleague says everything would be all right if only we could be recognized. But even the Meech Lake accord, as I said earlier, was not acceptable to Quebeckers. So how can they accept this unique society concept today, in 1997?

I would like my colleague to explain to me how Quebeckers could accept this unique society concept when nobody can say what it means. We first had the distinct society concept, and it means more to me than the word unique because we know everybody is unique. In my opinion, this unique society concept does not mean a thing. I would like my colleague to explain to me how he could convince my colleagues and my constituents in Matapédia—Matane to accept this concept.