Gérard Asselin

[Committees Of The House, March 4th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I think that, this afternoon, the Reform Party has been attempting to skirt the issue. Before the House recessed for Christmas and before the prorogation of Parliament, they had put forward a motion in which they asked to be recognized as the official opposition. You will recall that they had asked the Speaker to rule on a motion claiming the status of official opposition.

Last week, the Speaker of the House of Commons came back with an excellent ruling, stating that the Bloc Quebecois had achieved official opposition status in 1993, after the elections, and was the second party in the House of Commons. In the event of an equality of seats, and this is purely mathematical, and of our losing one seat or of the Reform Party gaining one, they will become the second party, or we might remain the second party.

I suggest that we wait for the result of the March 25 byelection, at which time the Bloc Quebecois' position will be consolidated, with at least 54 seats.

I think that the masks should be taken away from the Reform Party members. I think that playing this role, this afternoon, and raising this issue about the chairmanship or vice-chairmanship of committees, is basically a back-door method of showing that the Speaker was wrong and should have designated the Reform Party as the official Opposition. They are trying to send to English Canada the message that the Speaker made a mistake.

Again, I maintain that the designation of the official opposition is purely mathematical. The advantage for us of having a Bloc member as vice-chair of a committee is, as the member for Portneuf explained, that it gives us priority for the first five minutes of questions to witnesses who appear before the committee. The vice-chair also sits on the steering committee that determines priorities on the agenda.

We have wasted a lot of time. We have been discussing this issue since oral question period ended, at 3 p.m. The Reform Party makes an issue of who should be vice-chair and who should be chair.

We are told that the interest on the national debt increases at the rate of $1,000 per second. The Reform Party should realize that, while we are arguing about who should fill the positions of vice-chair and chair, the interest on the debt has gone up $10,800.

We should be discussing job creation, programs and the future of our young people. Instead, the Reform Party is using roundabout means to try to show Canadians that the Speaker erred when he ruled that the Bloc Quebecois will remain the official opposition.

[Striking Committees, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming increasingly obvious to anyone listening to the conflicting remarks made by ministers of this government that they cannot honour the promises made in the final days of the referendum campaign.

Unable to develop a policy that meets the traditional demands of Quebecers-demands that they had been denying for years-the best that these ministers can think of is to disguise their failure to act by striking one committee after another.

First, they announced the establishment of a phoney committee on national unity, but the ministers who were to sit on this committee did not know that they were members of the committee. They did not even know what their mandate was.

Then, a shadow committee on economic growth and employment was established. Two years after taking office, the federal ministers have decided that the time has come to start tackling the problem of unemployment. More committees and still no action. This reeks of improvisation.

[Auditor General Act, September 18th, 1995]

The Prime Minister says that everything is hunky-dory.

[Petitions, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners ask the government not to downsize the staff at the employment centre in La Malbaie, which would have the effect of jeopardizing the services provided.

Like most regional offices, the office in La Malbaie is crucial to the population of what some people wrongly describe as-

[Petitions, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table in the House two petitions containing the signatures of several thousand voters in the constituency of Charlevoix.

In the first petition, the petitioners are asking the government to change municipalities in the regional county municipalities of Charlevoix-est and Charlevoix-ouest from area 16 in north central Quebec to area 25 in northern Quebec, for the purposes of unemployment insurance eligibility.

Since most jobs available in area 16 are seasonal, the petitioners are asking to be made part of area 25, which is better adapted to the kinds of jobs they are seeking.

[Petitions, June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my privilege to table in the House a petition signed by more than 850 residents of the riding of Charlevoix.

Your petitioners call on the government to make zone 16 in the central northern region part of zone 25 in Northern Quebec, in the case of municipalities included in the MRCs of Charlevoix-est and Charlevoix-ouest, for the purposes of eligibility for unemployment insurance.

Since most of the jobs available in zone 16 are seasonal, your petitioners want to be part of zone 25, which better reflects the kind of jobs they have.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, May 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, here is my question.

Does the minister realize that, while he doles millions of dollars out to the Winnipeg Jets, the unemployment insurance cuts contained in this government's last two budgets are making life unbearable for seasonal workers and are causing people from Charlevoix to starve?

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, May 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I will start over again.

Does the minister realize that the unemployment insurance cuts-

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, May 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, here is my supplementary question. The time for speeches has passed: it is now time to act.

Does the minister realize that, while he doles millions of dollars out to the Winnipeg Jets, the unemployment insurance cuts made by this government and the one before it, in particular those contained in this government's last two budgets, are making life miserable for the unemployed and unbearable for seasonal workers?

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, May 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The people of Saint-Siméon and the surrounding area in the Charlevoix riding, are bracing themselves for the unemployment insurance reforms imposed by the minister in the February 1994 budget. These dramatic reforms are hitting them very hard. Entire families have been forced onto social assistance, because of the inadequacy of the unemployment insurance system.

Does the minister realize that his reforms have pushed thousands of citizens, like those of Saint-Siméon, closer to misery, and that he must revoke these cuts in order to stop thousands of unemployed people from flocking to social assistance.