Francine Lalonde

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, as the official opposition critic on human resources development, since the last election campaign, I am today faced with the Martin budget. It has been one long obstacle course.

Having come this far and despite what the minister says, I know from reading his budget and listening to his speeches that, far from giving up the idea of implementing major cuts in social programs and centralizing powers, the budget before us confirms that what the central government wants most of all is to withdraw from health, education, social assistance and other social services, but to keep the sectors where it feels it must be involved, even if they are not under its jurisdiction.

Now, without a word of warning, without any concern for efficiency, it is about to shamelessly increase duplication and overlap. During the human resources development committee's

recent tour, many groups and individuals, more than 1,000 Canadians, came and told us basically that what they needed most was not training, although it was often requested, but rather jobs, decent jobs.

There is strictly nothing in the budget on this matter. The budget is silent for some incomprehensible reason. It is silent, while budget cuts alone lead nowhere in terms of dealing seriously with the deficit and debt problem. Yes, the minister made a step in the right direction, but you need only take a good look at the budget to see that the debt will not be reduced this year, on the contrary, and that a deficit reduction was achieved at the cost of great and extremely difficult sacrifices. Considering that a single percentage point will make $1.7 billion difference in debt charges, it is obvious that we must not look only at cuts.

We must not for the sake of the debt, of course, but above all for the people whose livelihood depends, right now, on their jobs or the hope of getting one. All over Canada, people have told us that they were prepared to talk about social programs and social reform, but not in the context of further cuts. They told us also that Canada was no leader in terms of social programs. Recent OECD statistics clearly show that Canada's social expenditures are below OECD average, at the same level as that of New Zealand's, for the information of New Zealand admirers.

What does this budget say? It tells us that another $7,5 billion will be cut in social programs between now and 1998. I say "another" because we must not forget that the previous budget passed in this House also provided for a $7.5 billion cut in social programs. So, this makes two times $7.5 billion, or a total of $15 billion, in cuts in social programs over a period of four years. That is what we learned following a leak, when the Minister of Human Resources Development announced his project. In the end, after this whole exercise and after the bickering among Liberals, we realize that what was the plan in October is now in the Minister of Finance's budget, in spite of all these consultations.

People said: "The government can no longer cut into social programs". Yet, the expected cut is being made, in spite of the problems that it will generate. What else does this budget tell us? We see that the federal government is backing away from funding in health, education and welfare.

I use the term "backing away" because the federal financing of these sectors is reduced to such an extent that the provinces will experience increasingly more serious problems. The merging of the old financing, education and health programs, as well as social assistance, is called the Canada Social Transfer. This transfer hides two realities mentioned in the budget. First, because of this Canada Social Transfer, if there is a recession, the provinces will have to fully assume the additional costs related to the increase in the number of people relying on welfare. That is what I mean by backing away, Madam Speaker.

The Canada Assistance Plan, which was far from being perfect, was based on the financing, by the federal government, of provincial programs designed to help the poor. The federal government is now eliminating that structure, claiming that it will provide more flexibility. But where is the flexibility for the provinces? The federal government is not transferring responsibilities to the provinces: they already had them. Rather, it is transferring costs and, in fact, leaving the provinces to look after the problems, while knowing full well that, in the end, it is Canadians who will pay the price, and in a very dramatic way.

I will repeat a comment made by the hon. member from British Columbia who spoke just before me. She said that the government was giving back to the provinces the power to spend because they are in the best position to do so appropriately. Why is it that the government is giving back to the provinces funds which are dwindling and about to disappear? The federal government is telling the provinces to use their imagination, when it is in fact dumping its problems on them.

But there is money available, even though that may come as a surprise to you. There is a hidden fund which explains why the budget may have looked better than expected. I am referring to the UI fund and the programs financed through that fund. Quebec asked for the control of the whole manpower sector, or at least as regards vocational training. There is money for that. Where will that money go? Unfortunately, when there is money available, the federal government does not think that the provinces are in the best position to show some imagination, to know what the public's needs are, and to help Canadians. No. The federal government only recognizes the ability of the provinces when they are forced to live with cuts, to make hard decisions and to look like the culprits.

However, when the provinces could have the tools to promote employment and define meaningful strategies, then the federal government prefers to remain in control.

Thanks to the UI fund, the federal government can, in its budget, make proposals which almost go unnoticed. One such proposal is the new investment fund for human resources.

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, while the Human Resources Development Committtee was travelling, we were told repeatedly that it was not merely a question of training but of jobs, real jobs. And yet this budget contains nothing about employment.

How does the finance minister dare demand an additional sacrifice from the unemployed, to the tune of at least $700 million, when he has imposed a temporary tax of $100 million over two years on banks and financial institutions although we know that the Royal Bank alone recorded profits of $1.2 billion last year?

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, after making cuts to unemployment insurance of $5.5 billion over three years in his first budget-and the unemployed have not yet fully felt the effect of these cuts-the Minister of Finance is not letting up, cutting an additional 10 per cent from the unemployment insurance budget for next year.

Does the finance minister realize that these additional cuts he has announced for unemployment insurance will deprive the unemployed of at least $700 million more in 1996-97?

[Young Offenders Act, February 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke could also have looked at the system we have in Quebec, a system that was put in place a number of years ago and that, as far as we are concerned, has proved its worth. Unlike the bill to which the hon. member was referring, our system is not based on the premise that young people can be rehabilitated through repression.

Unfortunately, this bill leans towards repression. It gives the public the impression it will be better protected because young offenders who are 16 or 17 years of age and are tried in adult court will get longer sentences.

The public is being deluded. It has yet to be established in the literature that increasing sentences acts as a deterrent in such cases. I do agree wholeheartedly with a number of points the hon. member made. We must look at what causes crime, and even more important, we must ensure that when young people have committed a crime, they are given, considering their age,

every opportunity,-this is important for society as well-to get out of the kind of life that they have chosen or into which they have been led, not perhaps altogether voluntarily, considering the problems many of them have had.

This bill is even more offensive in the case of Quebec, where we have set up a system I would urge the hon. member to come and see, and not just in the large urban centres. We really had to put a lot of work into this system; we had to call on multidisciplinary resources and take a more community-oriented approach based more on compensation for damages or on the actual rehabilitation of the young person.

The federal legislation, which will have to be administered by Quebec, will have a very disruptive impact on this system. This is true in other provinces and it is also true in Quebec. The government ignores existing systems that work well and imposes or adds a system based on repression, a system that does not connect with systems that already exist and have proved to be effective.

This is outrageous, and does not bode well for the future. I think this is just one more reason to say that as far as guidance, social justice and equity are concerned, we are perfectly capable of doing the job ourselves.

The Quebec Bar Association submitted an extensive brief to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, in which it accurately summed up the situation in Quebec. It said that young offenders in Quebec are eligible for alternative treatment of their case, which involves a referral to the Youth Protection Branch, proposals for an arrangement and the use of alternative sentencing such as reimbursing the victim or doing community work. In fact, almost 47 per cent of the cases are handled this way. Where alternative sentencing is not a possibility, all such cases in Quebec will be tried by a special youth court. Once the court has handed down a sentence, it will be up to the health care and social services network to see that it is carried out.

The choice that Quebec has made to entrust young offenders to institutions that come under the department of health and social services illustrates its philosophy in this matter. The ultimate aim is rehabilitation in the medium and long terms rather than a panacea of repression, which at best offers society only short term protection.

The crime rate among adolescents in Quebec is one of the lowest in the country, in fact, the second lowest. The adoption of Bill C-37 will upset all of our institutions whose role so far has been to promote rehabilitation.

I might add that imprisonment, by itself, while appearing to protect society, and which, even in the bill, is of limited duration, often ends up making criminals out of those who were initially only unfortunate or unlucky young individuals. If you want to be sure to turn 16 and 17 year olds into criminals, send them to prison. The longer the sentence, the better your chances of achieving that effect.

We are strongly opposed to this bill. We believe that the minister, who, in any case, had said he wanted to review all the legislation to do with young people, should have examined the overall situation before tabling this bill. Having done so, he could have offered Canadians and Quebecers, not a comforting short term system, but a medium and long term one, which would prove less costly and permit the building of a society where people would really feel safe, because young people would have the opportunity to reintegrate into society rather than risk being handed another prison term.

We will oppose this bill vigorously. We hope Canadians will appreciate our arguments. During our tour on social program reform, I heard it said everywhere in Canada, except in Quebec, that people were looking to Ottawa for an answer and for social justice through strong national standards.

It seems to me that the adoption of a bill like this one casts doubt on Ottawa's ability to show the way to social justice, fairness and hope for all Canadians and Quebecers, and particularly for young people.

[Job Creation, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to know that, between 1985 and 1988, just as we were coming out of the crisis, there were over 60,000 more jobs on average than under this government, notwithstanding the increase in population. I can only conclude that the government does not care about the unemployment problem.

How can the minister explain the fact that his government is not handling the economic crisis nearly as well as the previous government did in the middle of the 1980s? Will the government finally get rid of its wait-and-see attitude, which is no longer enough?

[Job Creation, February 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. According to the latest report from Quebec's ministry of income security, the number of welfare recipients has gone up again. There are now more than 797,000 people on welfare. Although massive layoffs are announced in several sectors elsewhere in Canada, the government is clearly content to rely on the economic recovery to create jobs.

Given the significant increase in the number of welfare recipients and the fact that the results of job creation programs are well below the figures quoted by the Prime Minister, does the government realize that it cannot just sit back and let the economy do the work and that it must put in place an active employment policy to provide the jobs so badly needed by Canadians and Quebecers?

[Unemployment Insurance Act, February 21st, 1995]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that this issue is important enough to give a member of Parliament the right to a modicum of attention, in the same way that unemployed jurors merit to qualify for benefits.

The current provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act prevent UI claimants from accepting jury duty. I believe that one factor should weigh heavy in the decision that this House and eventually the government must take, and that is that, day in, day out, including any allowances to be made for Quebec, on the average 30 per cent of all those who are able to work or have worked are on unemployment insurance. Not everyone milks the

system until their benefits run dry. What is more, with the new cuts we are seeing, it is not everybody who qualifies for unemployment insurance for several months.

There is therefore a significant number of citizens who, each year, rely on unemployment insurance. Something does not make sense when the judicial system must pass over these citizens, who are available anyway, only to call on others.

Furthermore, it hardly makes any sense either that those who must serve as jurors are only paid the meagre allowance of $25 per day.

It is not merely a question of amending the Unemployment Insurance Act to ensure that people chosen for jury duty may exercise their right to do so-recognizing that they are not handsomely paid since, as people say, no one gets rich on unemployment insurance in any case-and continue to receive at least the minimum to which they were already entitled under the Unemployment Insurance Act, thereby allowing them to perform this function which is eminently necessary to a democratic system, namely being chosen at random from the population for jury duty.

I say to the minister that this is not only a reform worth carrying out, but rather one that should have been carried out a long time ago because of the many negative consequences for ordinary people. In that way, we would be sure at least that persons receiving unemployment insurance benefits would not try to avoid this important role which is also very demanding physically and morally.

Since certain responsibilities are already being imposed on them, we would like to allow them to keep at least some peace of mind, which is in any case greatly diminished since unemployment insurance is hardly a king's ransom.

So I would ask the House to vote for the amendment proposed by my colleague from Restigouche-Chaleur and I say to him that Bloc Quebecois members will vote for this amendment.

[Unemployment Insurance Act, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in favour of the bill tabled by the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur and tell him that we, the official opposition, truly hope that this private members' bill will become law.

It is indeed a flagrant injustice that people collecting unemployment insurance lose their benefits when they accept jury duty. It is an injustice of the kind that could compromise justice in all of the provinces and in all of Canada.

Some people have said that this provision should be covered by provincial law. I think it should be the opposite. In fact, what we have before us is an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act that would guarantee that jurors would not lose their entitlement to UI benefits because they are on jury duty. I must point out that, for the act to apply, the person submitting the claim for benefits under the Unemployment Insurance Act must already qualify and continue to qualify under this bill.

It is difficult to be a juror. It is certainly more difficult than being a member of Parliament who is trying to deliver a speech when everyone is talking. They have to carry out certain duties and we should at least make it easier for them. In fact, it is thanks to jurors that we have a justice system that is based on decisions made freely by citizens-

[Job Creation, February 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on February 6, the Minister of Finance boasted that more than 438,000 jobs had been created in Canada and that this was the best performance in a decade. Unfortunately for Canadians and Quebecers, Statistics Canada's annual figures are nowhere near this level. In fact, 261,000 jobs were created in 1994.

If we compare these figures with those recorded at the end of the early 1980s recession, last year's 261,000 jobs should be compared with an average of 347,000 jobs created annually between 1985 and 1988. The minister has nothing to brag about.

Especially since, with the increase in population, 825,000 jobs would have to be created to return to prerecession employment levels.

[Religious Freedom, February 15th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, yesterday, February 14, I put a question to the Prime Minister. I reminded him that the tenors of the federal government keep on repeating, hoping to convince Quebecers, that we do not need to reform the constitution, since federalism is flexible and in constant flux.

Then, I said to the Prime Minister something like: "If you want to be taken seriously, why do you refuse to recognize Quebec 's jurisdiction, requested time and time again, in the area of manpower training". There is a consensus among all Quebec parties in this regard. A consensus to which even the president of the Conseil du patronat, a well known federalist, subscribes.

Not only Quebecers share that opinion. The president of the Canadian manufacturers' association said recently: "Why is it that the federal government does not let the provinces exercise this responsibility?" There are powerful economic arguments in favour of it. Manpower training has to be geared to the job market.

The Prime Minister, instead of answering my question, said-and I can repeat it, since it is on the public record-"I know very well that she would remain a separatist even if we resolved the workforce issue." Of course.

However, what I find disturbing-and I cannot help but say it here-is that the Prime Minister is basically saying that he could not care less about what happens to young people, women and all those who need this efficient manpower training, because it is managed by the manpower agency we, in Quebec, have set up and which is not a government body. It is made up of representatives from the private sector, labour unions, municipalities, and of course, a few representatives from the Quebec government. It is an institution which should be recognized, if only the federal government cared about all those Quebecers who need manpower training.

The fact is that even if the federal government agreed to it, I would still be a sovereignist. But I will tell you one thing, it is because there have been so many situations like this one that many people like me know now that there is only one option for Quebecers, and that is sovereignty.