Denis Coderre

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1998]

The other side is whining again. It is this government that put the emphasis on the fight against child poverty. We allocated $850 million.

Another point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the truth hurts and pressure is building up on the other side. This once again shows the weakness of the arguments from the other side of the House. The opposition wants to sit until four in the morning? I have no problem with that. I have been working hard for 10 years to be a member. I can be here for hours and speak forever.

Opposition members want to raise points of order? Let them do so. I do not see many members from the NDP in the House. I do not see many Conservative members, nor members from the other opposition parties.

If they want to start a war, they better be prepared to fight to the finish. If I am going to be the only person here to take a count in parliamentary committees or in the House, I am prepared to do so. They better be prepared, because if they want to take things seriously, they will see that if they start a fight, they better be able to win it.

There is nothing more belittling than to see members opposite shooting themselves in the foot and continually telling us that the government did not do anything and does not take the public's interest seriously. It is this government that eliminated the deficit. It is this government that took position—

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1998]

The truth hurts, Mr. Speaker, but that is perfectly normal. They are trying to pull a fast one. Allow me to point out something. When there is a fight going on, one tries to fight to the finish, to reach a conclusive outcome.

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1998]

We do not agree on the basic premise, but we will—

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is an outcry today.

Last week, we were treated to a marriage between the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party, and today we have moved on to adultery between the Conservative and Reform parties. Members opposite are all so perfect. It is the Jimmy and Tammy Baker Show.

Now they are telling us how to do our job. These are people who ask questions in the House about India and Pakistan when there is not even a Conservative Party representative on the foreign affairs committee.

These people are so self-righteous, telling us there is nobody in the House, when we know that parliamentarians are also required to work in parliamentary committees.

There is nothing worse than a weak opposition. The opposition is weak because the opposition is weak. Today, we see why. The polls show the Reform Party with only 12% of popular support and the Conservative Party with 15%. The reason we have 55% is because we do our job. They are such a mighty opposition that, when 25 members were asked to rise in the House, there were 13 Progressive Conservatives and only 12 Reformers.

At some point, the ridiculous comments have to stop. Enough of this hypocrisy. I will tell members something about hypocrisy.

There are people in the Reform Party constantly saying that they are looking after important matters. I am on the sports subcommittee, and Reformers were never visible. The only time they showed their faces was when the National League governors were there, or when representatives from the Montreal Expos came to testify, because then there were cameras present. When there is a photo op., when there is a chance to show off, to play a little game, then they are there. But when there is a discussion of important issues, where are they then?

They got all holier than thou about Stornoway, saying it should be turned into a bingo parlour, but now their leader is living there because, as he said, “I have received mail on this, it is shocking. I was forced to move to Stornoway”.

Now we see all the nonsense that is going on now with these people—not just the leader of the opposition, but also members of his party and the Conservative Party—trying to cover up. I heard the NDP member commenting on “How dreadful it is, you are not there”. He should go see how things are in the foreign affairs and justice committees. To be honest, the only ones doing their job properly aside from the Liberals are the Bloc Quebecois. They take committee work seriously, the only ones who do.

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1998]

You are always here.

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, a majority of 9,000 people gave me this seat because I was telling the truth. I am very happy to be a member of this political party.

I will remind my dear friend opposite that, when we came into office, with the huge deficit we inherited, and when I see what deficit the NDP had, for example in Ontario, when that party was in power, I do not need the hon. member's advice on the definition of truth or the definition of management.

It is clear that we did our homework, that we took adequate economic measures. There is never a perfect system, but I can tell you this: 700,000 more workers benefited from it. The people in my riding are very happy. In the riding of Kamouraska, 3,100 more people are benefiting from the new measures and this is what is important.

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, if the separatists were serious, they would remember there was a consensus in Quebec to bring about major reforms in the old unemployment insurance program.

This is strange, because the separatists are advocating the same philosophy of active measures to put people back to work, but this time on the welfare issue. They proposed a welfare reform based on need. This is what we have done in fact.

The important thing is for people to get back into the workforce. I do not want a society that relies solely and constantly on these benefits. I want to find active measures for women, for seasonal workers and for young people to put them back to work.

What the members of the Bloc Quebecois want is to live like in the good old system. It is clear that they are totally out of touch with reality. This is not what Quebeckers want. They want active employment measures and this is what the minister has done.

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Oak Ridges.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion before us.

I think this motion is another example of the attitude of the member and his colleagues from his party who are trying to demolish the progressive legislation that our government put in place during its first mandate.

We have listened to Canadians. The Government of Canada has modified the outdated unemployment insurance program to adapt it to the new realities of the job market. After two years of consultations, we have fulfilled the wishes expressed by Canadians in that regard.

We have created a forward looking employment insurance program that is more flexible, that meets the needs of a greater number of workers and—I really want to stress this last point—that is self-sustaining.

The main purpose of the new employment insurance program is to help all unemployed Canadians, regardless of where they live, to go back to work, and that includes Quebeckers from the member's riding. The government is very pleased to have been able to help more than 3,100 residents of the riding of Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques to find jobs since 1993.

With employment insurance, we have put in place a system that is more fair and equitable. We wanted to put an end to the vicious circle of dependency encouraged by the previous system. The employment insurance program is better equipped to create jobs in regions where unemployment is high.

Our employment insurance system strikes a balance between providing workers who lose their job the income support they need, and giving them the means to return to work.

For example, the system is specifically geared to workers who are entitled to the family income supplement, which helps low income claimants with children. For these people, this supplement is more than double the weekly benefit supplement that they used to receive under the old system.

Moreover, the employment insurance system sets at $50 the minimum amount of eligible supplementary earnings, thus allowing low income claimants to increase their employment income without having their employment insurance benefits cut. Those who are entitled to the family income supplement are exempt from the intensity rule. Moreover, the system pays back the employment insurance contributions made by those who earn less than $2,000 a year.

The employment insurance system is not only compassionate, it is also well thought out. For example, by determining eligibility based on the number of hours worked instead of the weeks of employment, the system is more fair and gives greater consideration to the realities of the current labour market.

It is true that people must work for a reasonable period of time before qualifying for benefits, but this is only reasonable. Again, the system is compassionate towards those who did not work long enough to receive benefits. The new system provides better support than did the old one.

For example, any person who collected ordinary benefits in the past three years can benefit from active re-employment measures. The same goes for those who collected maternity or parental benefits during the last five years, and who left the workforce to take care of a child.

These active re-employment measures give unemployed workers an opportunity to gain the skills and experience necessary to find a job. We are helping, among others, up to 45% of provincial welfare recipients.

In his motion, the hon. member claims that employment insurance treats women unfairly. I do not know where he got this idea. The system is far from unfair to women, quite the contrary.

Since the employment insurance plan has been implemented, part time workers, a number of whom are women, are not limited to 14 hours a week jobs like they used to be. Does the hon. member realize that the plan now covers about 270,000 women who were not eligible under the former unemployment insurance plan? Does he realize that nearly 70% of recipients—I must be touching a nerve, because members opposite are hollering—who get the family income supplement are women, and that nearly 700,000 women who work part time will have their contributions reimbursed?

More important, contrary to measures promoted by the Bloc Quebecois, we are well on our way to helping women re-enter the labour market through active employment measures and job creation projects. Any reasonable person will admit that putting people back to work is better that keeping them on benefits for a longer period of time.

The hon. member is worrying about the impact of employment insurance on young people. Let me tell you that young people today would agree that developing their full intellectual potential is crucial if they are to get a well paid job in today's knowledge based economy.

It is a fact that eligibility criteria have been made more stringent for newcomers on the labour market, but the intent is not to penalize young people. Quite the contrary, studies have proven that too easy an access to the former unemployment insurance plan was an incentive to drop out of school for small short term jobs followed by dependency on benefits.

Is that what the hon. member wants? I am sure his constituents will be happy to hear that. The government does not think it is a good idea to encourage young people to become dependent on benefits. Our goal is to encourage them to stay in school as long as they can and then help them make the often difficult transition from school to the labour market.

The hon. member of the Bloc Quebecois and his colleagues should know that the new employment insurance plan is very advantageous for seasonal workers. Many of them work long hours and are therefore at an advantage under the new system, which is based on the number of hours worked. I repeat: many seasonal workers work long hours and are therefore very much at an advantage under the new system, which is based on the number of hours worked.

If the Bloc Quebecois had its way, it would revert to the old unemployment insurance system, that passive system that Canadians, including Quebeckers, rejected as outdated. We will not do that.

We look toward the future and the future has already begun. The Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec signed a labour market development agreement under which we will invest $2.7 billion in the next five years. The province will be able to develop and manage programs specifically tailored to the needs of Quebeckers.

But, as usual, for the Bloc Quebecois, there is nothing good and bad things are our fault.

However we are ready for the future and the employment insurance program has a role to play in that future, even though the members of the Bloc refuse to admit it.

[Calgary Declaration, May 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Ontario became the eighth Canadian province to send a clear message in favour of national unity by supporting the Calgary declaration.

“We recognize Quebec's unique character”, said the Ontario legislature. The provinces are once again reiterating that Quebec belongs in the Canadian federation.

As for the Bouchard government, it has instituted a so-called non-partisan parliamentary commission on the Calgary declaration.

Why did nine of the thirty persons who were approached decline the sovereignists' invitation to take part in this bogus commission? This speaks volumes about the non-partisan nature of this commission, which Premier Bouchard would have us believe in.