Jean Landry

[Underground Economy, November 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in an interview he gave to La Presse on Saturday, the Minister of Finance tries to surprise us with his perceptiveness as a businessman. According to the minister, the underground economy far exceeds the levels reported by his own officials.

However, once the problem has been recognized, the minister's perceptiveness starts fading. He has no information to give us on the size of the underground economy, much less a solution to propose.

With regard to the GST, the government has lost control over its revenue but the minister does not have the courage to undertake a comprehensive review of his fiscal policy. He proposes to act alone in the dark.

Same thing for the debt and the deficit. Although the minister knows that he must cut spending in the public service, he has not made a single proposal. Yet, the minister is already slashing social programs without the necessary studies in hand. History repeats itself: Ottawa has decided to cut but it is the provinces and the unemployed who will pay the price.

[Social Security Programs, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer my colleague and also to inform all members of this House. A secret document published in the Toronto Star shows that with this reform, students will pay twice as much tuition.

When the minister asks these students to put their shoulder to the wheel, I think that is rather hard to do, since some students will leave university with a $50,000 debt.

I would also like to answer the question about women. With this new reform, women in Quebec and Canada, even if they have paid into UI all their lives, will not be entitled to benefits if their income is over a certain amount. I think it is unfortunate to pick on women in that way.

I must also say that the reform of social programs will cost $170 million just in Quebec and force 40,000 households onto welfare. We must look deeper into the reform of social programs.

Take a family in which the father loses his job for some reason or other or has an insecure job and winds up on welfare. Imagine what it costs the government. First, it often causes problems like depression, medical problems; he has to see psychologists and psychiatrists. We must analyze the whole situation. We must not have a reform just for the sake of having a reform. We must also analyze the whole situation.

I often say that we must do prevention. We know that there is $6.4 billion in unpaid taxes to collect, $6.4 billion for the government's finances. It is out there, but it must be collected. That is all. When we opposition members tell you about the $6.4 billion, we are not here just to make trouble. Not at all! We are here to find solutions with the government, not just to criticize.

As politicians, we must deal with this situation. Unions have noticed that today employers hire more and more people on three- or four-month contracts. That is what happens more and more. Some employment agencies do just that. They hire people and tell them: You are hired for four or five months. Consequently, you can expect these people to come back every year. This is a problem.

In my region, unemployment runs very high and there are many seasonal workers. The social program reform will be applied uniformly everywhere, whether a province is prosperous or not, and that creates an injustice. So, let us take a closer look at these issues, which affect the workers and the unemployed. Whether or not you are unionized, the problem will surface some day. I tell unions that, at some point, the problem will come up.

Problems will surface and some say we will perhaps need a better immigration policy. If a reform is necessary, we should go that far. I am not saying we should not let anybody in. What I am saying is we have to create jobs. Thanks to modern technology, a machine can do the work of 100 workers. But what happens to these people? They find themselves out of work. This is what happens. I have nothing against progress, but it is a matter of balancing the positive against the negative. And this is what my comments are all about.

[Social Security Programs, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my colleagues in this House by splitting it into 10-minute periods.

The least that can be said is that the Liberal government has finally achieved unanimity. In every province, a mass movement is taking shape against the proposed reform of social programs. I predicted-and I was not the only one-that the people would rise up against this reform whose prime objective is very clear: to meet the finance minister's budget requirements by slashing social programs. Yesterday, it was thousands of angry students, as the minister's dry cleaner can attest to. Tomorrow, it will be all the others who have nothing but whom the government is still going after. The only objective is to cut social programs.

The government plans to announce additional measures in its 1995 Budget, as it states on page 23 of its discussion paper. We know that the government has prepared a secret document specifying that the $7.5 billion in cuts announced in the last Budget will be supplemented by another $7.5 billion in cuts over five years.

I will now deal with the minister's proposal to address the current unemployment problem. His favoured option will introduce a second class of unemployed, that of workers with precarious jobs. Women and young people, who hold the majority of these jobs, will be the main victims of this reform. With this proposal, the minister creates cheap labour. In addition to compulsory employability measures, these unemployed people will be required to participate in community work. They also want these second-class people to pay higher premiums in return for lower benefits. Indeed, the government feels that some citizens are just lazy bums who lose their jobs on purpose. It wants to treat the unemployed like thieves sentenced to community work.

The federal government has always stressed that unemployment insurance was a generous system aimed at redistributing the wealth across the country. Yet, the minister's paper states that it may-repeat, may-become necessary to put in place special programs for seasonal workers to offset the negative impact of reform on regions with very high unemployment rates. If the government does not give that assurance in its document, this is cause for serious concern.

Earlier this week, a cartoon in a Quebec daily depicted a producer selling his corn for 75 cents a dozen, at -30 degrees. This is what the government wants seasonal workers to do.

As regards manpower training, the federal government continues to dismiss Quebec's claims. It wants to maintain national standards to bypass provincial initiatives and let local communities decide which programs they want to implement. The government is again trying to impose its famous single-window concept, which perpetuates overlapping and duplication, this time under the same roof. Talk about improvement! While all every stakeholder in Quebec agrees on the need for an integrated provincial policy on manpower development, the federal government persists in wanting to control everything. Ironically, the proposal made by the government in its report is the same one which was rejected last summer by the former Quebec Liberal government.

By persisting in maintaining and even increasing their involvement in manpower training, the Liberals only contribute to the administrative mess they know exists. In Quebec, $500 million were wasted within two years.

As we all saw, many students came here yesterday to demonstrate. Several women called me and said: "Can you tell me, sir, what will happen to me with the new social program reform? My husband earns $50,000 and I earn much less compared to him, but I do pay unemployment insurance premiums".

I told this woman: "Look, in all honesty, I think that you should get the service for which you pay". But this is not what the reform will do. The reform will ensure that you pay, but that you do not get the service.

I should tell you that one group of workers I helped at the union level went to court because they had paid for a service they never received. These people, who may be paying unemployment insurance premiums, will now be able to say: "I contribute to the unemployment insurance fund, and my husband earns so much money. I will no longer pay unemployment insurance premiums, since I will not be entitled to benefits".

It only makes sense not to pay for a service you will not get. We should not focus only on the negative aspects of the reform. At one point, I asked why a reform of the unemployment insurance program was undertaken. I was told that too many people cheat the system. I said fine, can you tell me the percentage these people represent. The answer was 1 per cent. One per cent are cheaters, and because of that one percent, the 99 per cent who are honest, who have not done anything wrong, will be penalized.

That is totally unacceptable. I entirely agree that reform is necessary, but we should not penalize the most vulnerable in our society and we should not penalize all women in Quebec and

Canada by withholding unemployment insurance benefits because of a tax bracket that is beyond a certain level.

There are alternatives, and I can suggest a few simple ones. I agree that reform and cuts are necessary, but leave the most vulnerable members of our society alone, once and for all. Go after the multinationals that make millions of dollars in profits and do not pay taxes.

I have had enough. I can no longer go along with this system. There is something I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker. You saw those young people demonstrating on Parliament Hill. I would urge the unions, I would urge all workers to get up and come to Ottawa to demonstrate against these measures which are intolerable, and I can tell you I will be there on Parliament Hill with those groups, with the most vulnerable members of our society.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to express its concerns about Bill C-50, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, which provides for deductions from the board's wheat sales in the four Western provinces and from barley sales in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and British Columbia.

We certainly agree with the principle that this sector should contribute to research and development and with an initiative that could generate close to $5 million for plant breeding research on wheat and barley. Especially since this initiative was put in place by the producers themselves, who will thus remain competitive with their counterparts in countries where plant breeding research is strongly encouraged. I am thinking in particular of American, European and Australian producers, who played a leading role in reviving government plant breeding programs. That is why a deduction program is vital to Western producers.

However, we are entitled to ask a few questions. While the government really meets this sector's needs by promising to contribute to the research fund, it should not withdraw later because it is a producers' initiative. We must see to it that our interests are truly protected.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois proposed amendments to this bill which, as you will see, my colleagues from other parties will readily approve. Again, they are aimed at protecting producers' interests.

The first amendment provides that it should be clearly stated in the act that the board must consult with producers before changing rates, for example. If it seems obvious to you, then the government should have no objection to putting this in writing in the act. This would provide extra protection for producers. We must ensure that the Canadian Wheat Board always consults producers' associations before recommending changes in deduction rates. The democratic right of any association of producers to be consulted should be respected.

The second amendment is necessary to prevent the department's research projects from duplicating or overlapping the industry's. We are told that those concerned in the farming community will discuss the research plans in order to avoid duplication and overlap and ensure that the funded projects are complementary. The bill says nothing about this and that is why this amendment is essential. We in Quebec have seen too much wishful thinking to believe that the government will always act logically. The Minister of Finance has told us often enough that the government's financial resources are limited. A good way to avoid wasting public funds is to make duplicate research impossible.

We all want to reduce the deficit. When an opportunity to avoid waste presents itself, we should seize it! If you refuse to adopt this amendment, the people will judge you and you will be accused of lax handling of the funds provided by the producers. What we are asking for is a simple effort so that the government does not subsidize the same research activity twice. Show some resolve to end waste-that is what the people expect of us in general and the government in particular.

The Reform Party presented two motions with which we agree. Having the minister table a report will show that the producers and the government actually co-operate. However, we consider the fifth amendment unacceptable. Alberta set up its own program and, considering that we keep asking the government to put an end to duplication and overlapping, we would be ill-advised to let that government impose its program on a province which already funds research through contributions from its producers.

It would be useless to compete with the provincial initiative in Alberta. Quebec's example should be eloquent enough to understand the absurdity of such overlapping. In our province, the federal government never stopped trying to control agriculture. It has been told time and again that the Quebec government already supports farmers. Yet, the federal government is involved in market development as well as in research activities, even though the Quebec government is already looking after these aspects. The same is true for activities related to the inspection of agricultural products. Let us reject this amendment so that Alberta can avoid such problems with overlapping.

As for the other amendments, the bill would become a lot more acceptable if they were supported. As we say back home, you cannot be against virtue.

[Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, October 31st, 1994]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We do not have French translation and cannot follow what the minister is saying in English.

[Regional Development, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Ottawa is playing some weird and wonderful games with federally-funded regional development agencies in Quebec. It has restructured the FORDQ to increase its visibility in the regions on the eve of the referendum, while it reduces funding for regional development. Even worse, these cuts are being imposed arbitrarily. Business development centres, which are on their way out, were able to create a job for $5,000, compared with $100,000 in the case of the federal infrastructures program.

Quebec should be given responsibility for regional development, which would get rid of the current bureaucratic mess and the haphazard cutbacks proposed by the federal government.

Only Quebec can consolidate the resources of all the agencies that are active in the regions. It would be a real one-stop service.

[Social Security Programs, October 20th, 1994]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. When the hon. member opposite was spoke earlier, he made a few points about unemployment insurance. Since he has already started to respond to my comments and talk about unemployment insurance, I would appreciate it if he would expand on what he was saying. That was it.

[Social Security Programs, October 20th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member opposite, who talked about fire throughout his speech. And speaking of fire, I would like to say that the government started the fire, and it is now up to the opposition to put it out.

My question is very straightforward. Earlier, in referring to social security reform, the hon. member mentioned one aspect of unemployment insurance reform. My question is about unemployment insurance and one specific point on which I would appreciate some clarification.

The government says it will put in place a mechanism to find people who are cheating. I have no objection to that. I would, however, appreciate a little more information on unemployment insurance reform and what it entails. I would appreciate it if the hon. member could expand on the role of the RCMP in apprehending cheaters. Could we have some more details?

[Social Security Programs, October 20th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened very attentively to my colleague and I would have a question for him. Just now, he told us about $7 billion in cuts to the poorest people. I would like him to give us some alternatives to these cuts. Where else could one cut, except at the expense of the very poor? I would like the hon. member to give this government some alternatives.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we were talking about fairness. That is a point I wish to raise. I would like to debate the issue of fairness.

In my riding in Quebec and elsewhere, we see young people who, after completing agricultural studies, want to start working on farms, or to buy family farms. There are many restrictions and requirements at the FCC. Young agricultural school graduates are not allowed to work in their field of study.

We in Quebec know what we need. I have nothing against them defending the federal government but I want fairness. As I said earlier using the figures I quoted, we have 24 per cent of the population but only 10 per cent of the budget. I am not asking the impossible; we should simply get our fair share per capita, that is, 24 per cent.

With respect to agriculture in Quebec, there is overlap and duplication. The party opposite has asked us to offer solutions. We do more than just criticize. The Official Opposition is not only to criticize but to propose solutions, as we saw this afternoon when we talked about tax shelters and family trusts. We indicated where cuts must be made and what is needed. We do more than just criticize. I am willing to criticize but also to offer solutions.