Skip to main content
.0400

My colleague referred to something a bit indecent when he spoke of the federal government's desire to get around things and go directly to the individual. For instance, as regards courses in training, he says: ``If you are eligible, you'll get the cheque, but the cheque will only be issued if there's an agreement with the provinces.''

This puts pressure on individuals so that they want to take this course, and turn to the government of Quebec saying that this is unreasonable and that there should be an agreement. The Quebec government would then have to lower its demands, even though everyone accepts them. By the way, I'm telling you that they want to reduce them so that the federal government gives out, or loses, as little control as possible over the money it manages: its taxes and the employees' and employers' premiums, in the case of unemployment insurance.

It's obvious that there isn't any real desire to come to an agreement with Quebec concerning manpower training. An MP was telling us previously to make concrete suggestions and add a chapter on the transfer of manpower training to Quebec. It's pretty straightforward. We're asked for suggestions, but we've been giving them for years and we still wonder why none of them are in the bill.

Concerning training, do I have to repeat that the analysis from the OECD, or the World Competitiveness Report, shows that we have huge training problems in Canada? We're going downhill and we end up with available jobs, but with manpower that isn't adapted to them. So there's a lack of appropriatedness between the job market and our training goals, because we're wasting money left and right for political reasons to satisfy the government's urge to centralize.

I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman, but I'd appeal to the common sense of some of the Liberal Party's MPs so that they 'll admit that this reform won't settle much. The real question we should ask is: What is the basic goal of this reform? What goal will be met with this reform? Perhaps the MPs will wake up and debate this.

There could be interesting amendments, such as allowing longer periods for people in training so that they aren't stopped by strict schedules and training which may last a year and a half. We also have to make sure that people who are eligible for unemployment insurance for a limited number of weeks also have access to this training. That's the key; which means that we have to make sure that manpower is as able as possible to enter the job market of the next century.

At the same time, we have to generate conditions as favourable as possible for job creation, while at the same time not allowing the government to slip out of its responsibility towards the job market. It's easy to say that the private sector creates jobs, but I come back again to a measure which would lower the maximum insurable. That doesn't create jobs. Quite the contrary, it sends out a signal to employers and leads them to get their employees to work overtime, which costs them less. That is the message that is sent out to them.

In the same way, in Quebec, there are people who want to review corporate taxation at the Sommet socio-économique sur la fiscalité. Obviously, companies want to bring down their payroll tax. But there are also people who want to look into this taxation so that payroll taxes aren't an incentive for employers to hire.

Perhaps we should have done the opposite, which is to say increase the taxes after a certain number of hours. That's the only way to reign in the private sector. Don't think that the private sector is going to philosophize and say that job sharing is a great idea. It has to be in its interest. Perhaps we should also get it to understand that the private sector would be the big winner if the unemployment insurance rate were lower.

.0405

As our economy takes off, there will be less need to tax social benefits and payrolls. The less people work, the fewer work related accidents there will be and the lower the costs incurred will be.

We have to send out a clearer signal to the private sector that the government is serious and really wants job sharing. I was stunned to hear the parliamentary secretary tell me that people didn't want it. That is when I stopped and said that I was sorry for calling him a conservative; I should have said he was a reformer. In my opinion, people accept to live in our economic system, but they are also sensitive and would like to share the wealth.

Wealth is growing. It's been a few years since there was a recession. There is therefore an increase in our gross domestic product and hence our gross national product. Our problem is that the gap between the poorest and the wealthiest is growing continuously. So the redistribution of wealth is being done less efficiently.

Will the unemployment insurance reform increase the efficiency of this redistribution? I doubt it.

What is our role? What will be the government's role in the year 2000? You say yourselves that your role in job creation is minimal. We therefore have to make sure to redistribute wealth adequately, unless you don't believe in it.

That does not mean resorting to extremes, but there are a certain number of things in our system which we put a lot less energy into than unemployment insurance. Do you think that low income earners can contribute $13,500 to an RRSP? No one here in Ottawa has mentioned considering that; no one.

I was speaking before about the capital gains exemption, which has helped the wealthiest segment of our population. The first $500,000 worth of exemption, have you thought about that? The marginal tax rate of a person who makes this kind of gain must be between 40 and 50%. We give him a gift of about $200,000. Multiply that by the number of people we've given this gift to by the money we didn't have, because we were going into debt. So we borrowed to give money to the rich. Calculate the interest on a few billion dollars of the present debt.

You are going to immediately respond by saying that it is investments that make the economy work, that stimulate the creation of businesses, and consequently, job creation.

Do you think that money from the unemployed in Eastern Quebec is not productive? They very rarely spend it outside the region. They don't really have the means to do so, but they spend it at the corner store or at the neighbourhood grocery store, at the local theatre, in their shopping centres where they buy clothes or on repairing their car locally. They do not necessarily spend three months a year in Europe, then three months in Florida, etc. They make the local economy thrive. Our local economies are solidly based on these people who are local consumers.

It is a myth to think that money spent by richer people is more productive for the economy than money spent by low-income earners. Actually, it is probably the opposite.

We won't talk about that either, or if we do discuss it, it will be for a maximum of five minutes. Important debates are being avoided as well as facing reality.

With this time-allocated motion, it is as if the government were refusing to look at itself in a mirror. In the final moments before adopting a bill such as this one, the opposition is holding a mirror in front of the government and asking it to look at what it's doing. The government will say that it wants to spend as little time as possible looking at itself and it will therefore limit the time spent looking in the mirror to ensure that what it sees isn't too ugly.

In my first speech, I quoted several examples from the Red Book. I referred to it earlier, but without necessarily quoting from it.

.0410

It contained beautiful sentences. Some people know how to write well. We have to wonder what happen to all those principles. Am I to conclude that it was you, Mr. Chairman, who wrote it? If yes, I would suggest that you send a copy to the prime minister.

At one point, you said that for far too many Canadians:

First mistake: there is not only one people in Canada. A mistake in the first sentence, this is off to a good start.

For far too many Canadians, after nine years of Conservative government, this dream has turned into a nightmare. Our economy is in disarray. We are now entering our third year of double-digit unemployment, and it is expected to remain above 10% until 1995. Over a million Canadian children live in poverty.

Listen to this.

For Canadians, the next election is about one simple question: what kind of country do we want for ourselves and our children?

We want a country whose people live in hope, not fear. We want a country where all of us see ourselves as contributors and participants, not liabilities and dependants. We want a country whose adults can find good jobs and whose children can realize their potential.

We want a country that recognizes the value of community. In an age of globalization, we want to belong to a national community that feels distinctively ours. We want to support our local communities as the source of our social stability and economic strength.

You could write that for the next campaign and change parties, and people would say that it is a good platform, that the government should do that. That would mean that they think you have not done any of that. When you talk about local economies, what local activities are you referring to? The unemployment insurance reform, where it hits hardest? In local communities, in local economies.

It is full of lovely sentences like that. It is really a collection. It should be a collection of poetry. It is not a political platform, or you have altered it quite significantly.

There are other passages that I have to find, because they're too much.

Is it through motions or a debate on fundamental issues limited to only five minutes, that integrity in our political institutions will be restored?

What has happened since the last election, since the Red Book was written? You are out of imagination? It is incredible to see such a significant change of course. I hope that from time to time, before going to bed, you pick up the Red Book and reread it to see that it was that that got you elected.

In the private sector, that would be misrepresentation. It is perhaps possible in politics, but it cannot work forever.

I'm going to give my other colleagues the opportunity to comment. I would simply like to remind the parliamentary secretary that there was a big contradiction in his introductory remarks when he said the following: ``Make concrete suggestions, you have not done so''. But two sentences later, he said: ``Let us study our amendments, and you will see that some of your ideas are included''. I hope that he can see that his comments are slightly contradictory.

.0415

He could perhaps correct what he said himself to put things straight. He's attacking the sovereignist forces. He should learn to deal and live with us, unless he plans to quit politics. We are democratically elected and we plan on getting reelected.

So far, Quebeckers are satisfied with our work, and we will be able to win their confidence. In the current circumstances, people have to offset a government that wants to go anywhere, anyway, by flouting the institutions, its own electorate and its members who want to honour their promises.

There are limits, and the opposition will make a point of monitoring them. The parliamentary secretary said he was ready to spend hours here; the same is true for us. There are fundamental issues for which we have to fight; we have to express our convictions and defend the people who do not necessarily have the means to make themselves heard here.

Bear in mind one thing: I'm convinced that very few individuals came to express themselves directly, even when the communities talked about business people. These people have points of view. They're not as organized and they rely on the opposition to monitor the government and hold it accountable for its actions.

Having said that, I wish my colleagues a very good night and I ask them to reflect attentively on the dilemma surrounding this reform. Why was it done and where is it going? Who are our actions really serving and who do we want to serve? We are undoubtedly on the right track, but to end up with something realistic, we'd have to start over again.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Mr. Tremblay.

Mr. Tremblay: I was just elected, and so I'm very different from you; I'm one of the little people.

When you are among the people and you look at government, you form an opinion on the government's performance, but you don't forget reality.

I'm a seasonal bush pilot. You must wonder what I'm doing in politics. A politician must represent the people, and not many Members of Parliament have had to face unstable employment and unemployment insurance.

Since last December, you have heard evidence. Look! I was unemployed last year and I worked for peanuts, and now I earn $65,000 a year. I have to keep my feet on the ground.

It is interesting that I should speak, because I have the impression that I'm not yet part of the system and I hope I won't be. I made that promise to my constituents. Some of them no longer believe in government and even less in the federal government. I think that we are being realistic if we know that there is no hope.

An honourable member: Are you our clown?

Mr. Tremblay: Clown? Excuse me, I do not know that word. You have before you a former unemployment insurance claimant. I am not against cuts. I am somewhat of a capitalist. I wanted to go into business and have an SME. So I think I'm in a good position to see both sides of the coin.

.0420

I am interested in partnership. I have mingled with people who have to draw UI benefits. And my fellow pilots have noted that one of their own has been elected a federal MP and has gone to set things right or speak the truth.

I have friends who will resume their jobs next year. They are not doing anything wrong. All they want is to work. But in certain regions in Northern Quebec and Northern Ontario, the reality is such that you cannot work all year.

This reform which says ``no'' is being presented. It is unfortunate, but we need money. Often, my former colleagues have a family, unlike me. Others have a house, a car or a loan to repay.

Next year, in about March, they will end up on welfare. Finally, we are told that you are going to have money, but that it is our government that will have to bear the brunt of it.

The problems are being off-loaded on the provinces. Our system is a democratic one and that fascinates me. When I arrived, I was told that his was the Human Resources Development committee, and I don't want to forget that.

I sympathize with the officials who are here and who have to work all night. After having listened to the Secretary of State's speech earlier, I almost felt guilty. It was very good. Tomorrow morning, they will come in and show the media that the members of the Bloc Québécois wanted to waste the time of the officials and the members of Parliament. I'm sorry, but you are the victims.

The reality is quite different. I have just arrived and I see that this isn't working. Some think that in isolated regions people work in the summer and the winter. That is not the reality.

This morning, I almost felt guilty. When I heard the Secretary of State's speech, and I asked myself what I was doing here. Am I here to waste other people's time? This morning, at 3:00 a.m., you cannot imagine the pride I feel. I had the opportunity to speak to the people who can make changes or completely withdraw this bill.

I thought about all the demonstrations. You saw the demonstrations. You crossed Canada to consult with the people. Moreover, I said to myself: There are consultations and that cost money. You went to Edmonton. That is fantastic.

.0425

But bear one thing in mind. It is easy to show up and to say you left Ottawa to hear from the people in Edmonton and Vancouver. Fantastic! I am an ordinary guy and I am finally going to be able to speak to the people governing me.

You listen to them. That's wonderful. They even demonstrate in the street. Do you think that it is for fun? Do you think that it is to waste taxpayers' time? Those people don't earn $65,000 a year. They are afraid because they have children to send to school and the state of the economy is incredibly frightening. And I haven't even talked about young people's views.

These people take to the streets for the fun of it. They think it's fun to go out and freeze. Well, no! It is because they can tell their Members of Parliament that they are lucky to live in a democracy and to be able to say what they think of the government.

I would not want to repeat the comments made by my colleague, Mr. Brien, who said that there is an opposition in a democracy. An opposition party should monitor the democracy. I am a watchdog of democracy.

We see that a bill is adopted. It is normal to occasionally make mistakes. It could be that the Liberal government chose one approach believing that it was the right one. I grant it that, but we see by the reaction of the people, by the consensus across the country, that it is mistaken. It does not matter. We can make changes or start over. But that is not what is happening.

Months were spent consulting the people and that cost a fortune. They were so tired of demonstrations that they organized teleconferences.

An honourable member: Vous allez faire une crise cardiaque.

Mr. Tremblay: That is my temperament. I am very relaxed. They organized teleconferences to tell the people they would listen to them, but it is because they did not want to see people demonstrating on the side. That bothered us. That's one view of things.

The role of the watchdog of democracy is to tell the government that perhaps it made a mistake. Would it be possible to look at things differently? Even if you consulted the people, I see that there was not consensus. When cuts are made, demonstrations are normal. At some point, you have to know how to back off when things don't really work. We are killing the country's economy.

A few months ago, I was on the other side of the fence. I saw that the government was consulting people on unemployment insurance on the news. It was listening to the people. How interesting! Now, here I am on a committee that must practically conclude its deliberations. We've been listening to the people for five months, and we have to work quickly. We have to deliver the goods. The bottom line is that in work, form is important. We will deal with the details later. That's a different story. We're being told that we have five minutes to speak. I think that that was an extremely important part.

.0430

The parliamentary secretary will say tomorrow that we got to the second clause, and some will say that the members of the Bloc Québécois are wasting the people's time. It is because it was the definitions.

Sometimes I wonder if man serves the law or if the law serves man. In a year or two, when the Act is amended, we will once again be facing economic situations where people will wonder how to interpret the Act. The interpretations will vary. We will have to ask the courts to rule on what the legislators meant.

We will come back to the initial debate to note what the people meant in the Act. That will happen so often that it will cost millions of dollars, and they are telling us that we are wasting taxpayers' money.

There's a paradox. I was ready as anybody to talk about the future. My mother always told me that when work is well done today, you do not have to redo it later.

Ms Lalonde: Oh, mothers!

Mr. Tremblay: Oh, mothers, yes! I am not a nitpicker who wants to move commas around, but in the case of an act like this one, which will have such a significant impact, it is worthwhile doing so.

I am under the impression that tomorrow, the parliamentary secretary will pass us off for people who are trying to mock the government and make it expend energy. I am pretty sure that it will succeed with some people.

You should have seen him earlier, Ms Lalonde; he was really persuasive. Perhaps he went to rest and will appear before the media tomorrow. Attention! This will be very impressive. I hope that the media will also go to the BQ side to hear their point of view.

Earlier, I was very impressed with the work of the parliamentary secretary. I felt guilty and I wondered what I was doing here. When I get my feet back on the ground, it disappoints me a lot.

If, with your salaries, you are not ready to work, then look: there are plenty of people my age who are ready to do this work, for that salary especially and in incredible working conditions. Our conditions are incredible, but we are not ready to spend five minutes discussing amendments. I came here to work, and I will stay all night if I have to.

When I was elected, it was as if I had a mission to accomplish. Today, I would rather go to sleep. But I have been given the privilege and the responsibility of making sure the government does a good job.

I know that governing is not easy, and that it is a lot easier to be in the opposition. When there are demonstrations, you can go out and shake demonstrators' hands. I salute the work of the government, because I have never been a government member. I am starting to play my role in the opposition. I am pretty sure that it is not easy, but the work must be done.

This brings me to the issue of young people. So far, I have told you that I have already been unemployed. I know that reality. Moreover, this morning, I am lucky to have the bill in my hands.

At one point, the union leader called on people to demonstrate and the people responded by saying that they didn't feel like it, it was Sunday and it was cold out. But then they wondered what they could do for their communities. They decided that it would be good to demonstrate so that there would be more people in the street.

.0435

They decided to go out and freeze together and although it was cold, that showed the government that they thought the reform didn't make any sense.

My work, on the other hand, is completely different. I did not go and demonstrate against the unemployment insurance reform because I was campaigning. Do not think that I campaigned against the unemployment insurance legislation, the budget or the Liberals. I am one of the rare candidates to have never criticized his adversaries.

I had the incredible chance this morning, at age 22, to get up out of my very cosy hotel bed knowing full well that I would have a meal tomorrow. But I have to keep my feet on the ground and think about people who are not that lucky. I talk about having a normal life, about some job security. But in reality, people do not know if they will be able to make ends meet at the end of the month.

Let's take the Chrétien government when it was in opposition. Opposition members earn MP salaries, and that is perhaps what makes us lose our sense of reality. Maybe I will be another victim of that, but I will have represented the people for at least one night. At any rate, I hope that I will do so another five or six years. For the time being, I have my feet on the ground, and I represent people who are living in misery.

I have the chance to discuss the bill with the senior officials before me; I respect them and I admire them for still being here this late, but in the end, it is their job.

As for me, I have the bill in my hands, and I think it would be interesting to be able to change things. But no, we have to move quickly because we have to deliver the goods, and if we do not deliver them, there will be more demonstrations.

This leads me to the precarious nature of jobs. Three years ago, I was a cegep student and I worked in the summer, consequently I could collect unemployment insurance stamps. Not many students are that lucky, but the fact remains that I became a bush pilot at age 19. At age 19, I was a professional pilot. I was a seasonal worker, but I had the chance to study in the winter.

But that did not make me lose sight of reality, because when you're young and you leave university, you often have more than $20,000 in debt. That is the reality in the regions.

.0440

We end up with $20,000 or $30,000 in debt. Some say that we are perhaps exaggerating. No. When we leave isolated regions to go to school in Quebec or Montreal and we have to rent an apartment, we spend $10,000 per year.

More and more, young people are entering an obscure period where they cannot even obtain unemployment insurance stamps. They leave university up to their eyeballs in debt. I even say that it is not up to the government to create jobs. The government must be there to support society's innovative job creation initiatives. Some are good. I salute the program initiatives to help UI claimants start businesses.

The problem is that we are ready to help people on UI, but not the waitress who works in the restaurant at $6 an hour; she has no unemployment insurance and she would like to get out of that situation.

I often said during my campaign that it would be important for young people to understand that they no longer leave university to look for a job, but to create one. My discourse is not that of a union leader, but all students are telling us that they do not receive UI benefits. One has to go on welfare or UI to benefit from these programs to start businesses.

I was lucky to have enough unemployment insurance stamps to be able to benefit from the self-employment initiative. That enabled me to continue receiving unemployment insurance benefits for a year. Perhaps I could have started my business. If I had not been elected, that is probably what I would have done this summer.

Under the new reform, I could not have dreamed of starting a business. All I had was $8000 to start a business. That was without counting what I needed to live.

Young people today almost have to dream that one day, they will have enough unemployment insurance stamps to at least have some security. Is it so difficult to meet the standards to qualify for unemployment insurance that it is practically a reform for the generation preceding ours.

We have equipped ourselves with social programs, and I'm under the impression that my generation is losing them.

.0445

In my region, cutting unemployment insurance freezes up the economy and everything grinds to a halt. Do you think that I have any hope when I think that the outlying regions are being completely left out of the federal system?

I would not like to get into generational issues. I am not the type of person to look to the past to see what they have done and subsequently complain. I want to provide solutions.

You experienced new hospitals, new roads. Going to university did not pose a problem. Even if you came out slightly indebted, employers were looking for you when you finished your studies. There was no problem.

We have incredible social programs. But we are wasting so much, so much. You may reply that we have to make cuts. To my mind, these cuts will paralyze the economy. I'm willing to compromise and accept cutbacks, but not any kind.

In the past, the Liberals created a super welfare state and there was a lot of waste, so now we have a very high debt. These reforms will just slow down the economy, at least in my area.

Don't forget that I first and foremost represent my riding. I'm very well aware that these reforms will have a very negative impact in my area. I simply want to point out that what happened in the past is deceiving.

Some people look at the debt and say: ``It's not serious. I will receive a pension when I'm 55 years old. I'm serving my third mandate and I think I've done a good job. Sometimes, I even spent entire nights discussing certain bills. I'll get a good pension''.

I'm concerned and I'm not alone. Some university programs cost a fortune. I don't even know if I will benefit from the unemployment insurance system which will apply to another generation.

I know that you're aware of all this. You probably have kids my age or a little older. If they are a little older, they may have the luck or the misfortune of falling under an unemployment insurance system and having some kind of security. But my generation is a little scared.

You hear that young people are only interested in drugs and alcohol. We are discouraged. And that feeling is sometimes justified when we look back on other generations who had it better than us. It's the first time in history that a generation will be less well off than the one which preceded it.

.0450

I don't want to make you feel guilty, not at all. In fact, I have the incredible opportunity of talking to people who created the problem in the first place. Indeed, I may not have acted differently had I been in that situation. I know that. But you shaped that moment in history. And even if I told you that it's disappointing... All this to say that I had two choices: to give up or to roll up my sleeves. I rolled up my sleeves, dammit! I rolled up my sleeves and asked myself what I wanted to do: complain or enter politics. And that explains why today you are listening to this funny 22-year old character.

Some of you may think that I'm a greenhorn following the party line, someone who, after being elected, was taken by the hand and told that these reforms did not make sense. You might think that I was directed to repeat everything I was told.

Well, of course, no! Get real! I'm much too... I entered politics because I believed my generation had something to say, this sometimes desperate generation. I decided to do something instead of giving up and complaining.

Believe me, it was not easy. I had stomach trouble and spent many a sleepless night. Tonight won't be the first. Before entering politics, I spent many sleepless nights. I kept on wondering what people would say.

Fortunately, I knew I was becoming a member of a good party. I took the risk of entering politics because the Bloc Québécois was open-minded enough to accept me. I was going to say something else, but I won't do so, out of respect.

I made the big decision so I could do my share. That's why I did not mind getting up this morning at 3:00 a.m. I know I'm going to spend all night trying to make a government understand certain things, a government which may not understand anymore what it's like for a person to be in debt and to have to take an exam for which one studied for a week to get one's degree, despite the debt load.

Actually, I wonder why I'm staying up all night. In any case, I won't have a job when I leave politics. I'm part of a completely chaotic system. But it doesn't matter. At this very moment, some students are getting up at 5:00 a.m. to study for their exams.

I had the incredible opportunity of getting up at 3:00 a.m. this morning to talk to a government which doesn't realize what is happening. If that means I have to talk for a week, then that's what I'll do. I just have to think of the students who are studying right now.

I don't want to go on like Michel Louvain would, but I'm a little disappointed that we are talking about reforms to the unemployment insurance system and about the way the system is perceived. Indeed, if you look at the latin etymology of the word ``chômage'', you'll find that comare means to rest when it's hot.

I get the feeling that the current government based its reforms on this definition. Some people think that the unemployed take a break when the weather is warm. Last year, I worked as a bush pilot in northern Quebec. I flew with workers, fishermen, hunters and all kinds of other people with whom I talked.

I was earning unemployment stamps, because as a bush pilot... Unfortunately, lakes freeze in winter and you can't land on a frozen lake. So, in the summer, instead of taking a break when it was hot, I worked in over 30 degree weather in the company of flies. You people in Ottawa don't even know what a black fly looks like, but in northern Quebec, it's a completely different world.

.0455

I don't want to talk about black flies today, but about how workers are affected by them. I apologize for smiling, but...

An honourable member: We can imagine.

Mr. Tremblay: It's unbelievable. I'm just thinking about the situation I was in last summer. I liked flying. It was fun. Sometimes, we got up at 5:00 a.m. and went to bed at 6:00 at night. Hard work, you say. Indeed, I worked very hard for the money I made. It was hard to meet the needs of my clients despite the black flies and the heat.

Today, I'm in a completely different situation. As a new member of Parliament my role is to tell you what life is like out there. And yet, we're being told that we are wasting your time. It may seem so at first glance. I'm almost certain that when the parliamentary secretary gives his presentation tomorrow, he will say that the Bloc Québécois has wasted a lot of people's time. It might seem so at first, but if we had spent only five minutes on each section... Take one section. I believe there are 180 in all.

Ms Lalonde: There are 190 sections.

Mr. Tremblay: It would only take a single section for an official to deny a person unemployment insurance because of the law, even if that person has the right to collect UI, at any point soon or in the short or medium term.

Yes, we did consult the public. Yes, a lot of work was invested in the reforms. I'm quite impressed by the thickness of the bill. But the opposition is the guardian of democracy. I'm saying this for those who were not listening earlier. In my opinion, the opposition is the guardian of democracy. Wouldn't it be interesting if the opposition said that some definitions would have to be studied because they don't seem quite right.

A little earlier, we were talking about section 2, which contains the definitions. But these definitions may apply to the 190 other sections. Therefore, it is fundamental and extremely important that the definitions... We have to get the terminology right.

We were told that we could only spend five minutes on that section. If I had to demonstrate in the streets, or if I had to go back to my previous job, and I have to say that, of course, the government consulted the public, but that it deemed that five minutes were sufficient because it had to speed up the process... I realize it takes time. However, we have chosen to live in a democratic system which gives people the right to speak.

I'm not talking to waste people's time or just for the fun of it, but rather to... After all, what's a night's worth of debates to tell you that it doesn't make sense?

In any case, I don't know if anyone is still listening at this point.

Ms Lalonde: Yes, yes.

[English]

An hon. member: What do you suggest? If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. What do you suggest?

[Translation]

Mr. Tremblay: That's a very good point. Would you be willing to reopen debate on section 2? I wouldn't mind. Besides, I'm telling you about...

[English]

An hon. member: Whatever you think is important.

[Translation]

Mr. Tremblay: Perfect. In that case, we can get back to work. Ms Lalonde knows the routine. I agree with you that - and I'll say this honestly - I'm new here. I'm not as familiar with the bill as my colleagues, who have worked on it with you. However, I have the opportunity today to tell you about real life.

You've spent about five months consulting the public, and basically... It's almost like a dictatorship when you do exactly what you have planned on doing even after consulting the public. Bang! The bill is passed.

.0500

I agree with you that we need solutions, but if you don't mind, I will ask Ms Lalonde... I can propose general amendments, but when it comes to the details, that's what I'm here for. I'm willing to discuss section 2, but we still haven't agreed on how important it is and how much time we should spend on it.

I'm ready to start working on the definitions right now and with all my colleagues. In fact, that's why I entered politics, to work with everyone.

I did not come here to prevent you from getting on with your work, but to work with you and to do so with pleasure. Indeed, I came tonight to work with you. In fact, this is my first time on committee. I was told that committee work was quite pleasant.

The picture painted by the media is that the various political parties fight amongst themselves and this creates friction amongst the public.

I was pleasantly surprised to discover that the reality was quite different. Liberals talked to Reformers and Reformers talked to everyone.

An honourable member: Not much.

Mr. Tremblay: Well, maybe only some Reformers.

It was nice to see that members get along well. That's fantastic and more people should know about it. Sometimes you get the impression that people hate each other. But that's not true, since we can sit down at a table and talk.

I was told that committees were different from question period, because people work together and listen to what others had to say. This is a pleasant surprise and quite nice. That's what I was told when I got here. Then I saw for myself that members got along very well, and that was good. I hope that will always be the case.

Even if we become a sovereign state, I hope we will keep on talking to each other, because I believe that English Canadians are wonderful. However, we'll talk about that another time.

I thought tonight would be pleasant and that we would talk about reforms to the unemployment insurance system. There are no cameras here and we should be able to talk like the representatives of the public that we are.

I'm willing to discuss certain issues. However, some of my colleagues are more familiar with the proposed reforms and they will certainly want to make suggestions and propose amendments. But they were told that this would be a waste of time and that they should limit themselves to five minutes. My colleague from Abitibi, my cousin from Abitibi - Abitibi and Lac-Saint-Jean are quite similar - said that if each section were debated for five minutes, that would be 20 seconds per member.

I agree that we should work efficiently and quickly. However, I think this shows a lack of respect. I don't need to repeat what the negative consequences would be if we botched - oh dear, it's hard to find words at this time of the day - the job... I don't know if that's a local expression. People invent words in my area. In any case...

Ms Lalonde: It's an English word.

Mr. Tremblay: Oh, it's an English word. So, you understand what I'm saying. ``Bâcler'' may have been a better expression in French. In any case, I was talking about the repercussions of botching our work.

Ms Lalonde: In any case, you've made them smile. That's good.

Mr. Tremblay: There's something I don't understand. I'll talk to you as if I was on the other side of the fence. By fence, I'm referring to the fence between members of Parliament and the population.

Take the population. We've been told there are $5 billion in the unemployment insurance fund which have to be cut. That's strange. That's very strange. In any case, that's up to you to decide.

[English]

I don't know if you're still listening to me. Maybe I could change languages. As the secrétaire parlementaire has said, it would be a great opportunity to practise my English because, you know, in Lac Saint-Jean there are not enough people who speak English.

But I think I have an open mind. I don't know if it's a great word. I have an open mind, because even if I'm separatist, I wanted to learn English because I think it's important to learn another language, to understand what the other nation wants to understand. So when I was 17 years old, I said I'd like to learn English; I'd like to understand.

.0505

I was a federalist before. I went to Saskatchewan and lived with a family there. I went to a school in Saskatoon, and I think it's a great place. I think they're great people and they have a great culture. Then I went to Banff, Alberta - also a great place - and worked as a housekeeper.

An hon. member: Which bar in Banff was it that you were in?

Mr. Tremblay: It was in the city of Banff.

[Translation]

An honourable member: No, he's asking what bar you were in.

[English]

Mr. Tremblay: No, I was working as a housekeeper at the end of Banff National Park. I had to raise some money because I wanted to go to Vancouver.

I took the train from Vancouver and I stopped at all the cities in Canada, except for the Maritimes. I'm awfully sorry that I didn't go to the Maritimes, but I hope to have the occasion to go there.

But this brings me to tell you that after having crossed Canada, I think you have a great country.

An hon. member: Hear, hear! We'll get you a passport. You might need one.

Mr. Tremblay: Well, actually I'm Canadian, but I think Canada doesn't work.

Monsieur secrétaire, you were telling me tonight about your vision. Your vision is a little different, which is fine, so that brings me back to me. I want to work with you when we are on the same subject, but sometimes it would be so simple if there were two countries. We would have done all the things that we wanted to do, and you would have your reform. Fine. Why don't we do that?

Anyway, I'm not here to talk about the problems of this country, because it's going to bring us to another discussion on the floor. What I'm here for.... Okay, I remember. I was telling you that because I'm talking in English now.

He was saying it would be great to practise our English. Yes, and I think all the people should do that. But anyway, I don't want to talk about language.

An hon. member: Bill 101. That's what we were talking about.

Mr. Tremblay: No, I'm not going to talk about that. I was talking about this reform.

I respect everybody, but I just think we made a mistake. Maybe I shouldn't say ``we''. I wish I could say ``we'', because it's quite simple: look at the young fellow, he's coming to the House of Commons and now he's going to say that he knows everything about everything. It would be quite easy to say, oh, look at me, look at me!

Excuse me, because I don't know what you think about what I'm telling you. I think it's quite serious, even though I'm laughing. It's because I'm getting tired.

What I'm trying to tell you is that I feel I'm just like all the people you have been consulting - I don't know if it's possible to say ``consulting'' here - about this country, but now I see that you say you have been listening to them but still think your reform is better, even if we think it's going to be terrible for the economy of this country.

So what I'm trying to do right now is tell you that by the fact that I was on the other side of the fence, working hard as a bush pilot in the north of Quebec, and by the fact that I've been a député - and I know there are not a lot of members who have had the chance or the ``non-chance'' to get unemployment benefits - my role this morning is to show you what the reality is.

.0510

Mon espérance, or my hope, is that if you can't understand what the population has told you, the fact that I'm here - well, I'm still a normal citizen, but a député is a little different - in a different way today.... Yes, I agree. I still think like that, but sometimes when I arrive here in Ottawa I think it's a different world, a world different from the one we live in.

Please excuse my English. It's quite hard to speak another language when you're tired.

[Translation]

I'll speak French. When you arrive in a government system like the one we have, you realize that even if members are still citizens, they don't work in an environment that reflects reality. This is another world. Besides, I don't think it's a world that has kept apace with the times. It might be a good idea to make some changes to the system.

These changes may lie in a sovereign Quebec. Indeed, they may lie in reforming Quebec's parliamentary system. Sometimes when you realize that a system isn't working, you might think that it is run by the wrong people. Perhaps that's why we keep on electing different parties. But perhaps we don't question the system itself enough. Maybe that's the problem.

Maybe we should change the system. I'm really beginning to believe that the system lies at the root of our problems. We should change the system. Quebec sovereignty would provide us with that opportunity. Indeed, making changes to the Constitution or to the Senate at this point... I don't want to get into it, but under the system we are forced to live with senators and the monarchy. By the way, I believe Prince Charles is here today.

I've just come off an election campaign where everyone told me to wake up the senators or to get rid of them.

There are members who don't believe in the Senate anymore but who think that the institution cannot be changed. There's no problem. It's too complicated. Any change would involve amending the Constitution and if we do that, Quebec will become involved and the situation will be much too complicated. Neither of the two peoples wants to budge.

But there is a solution. Do you want to keep your Senate? Then keep it. That's fine. I respect your opinion. I respect everyone. I think barriers should fall. Some people believe that if Quebec becomes sovereign, it will raise a wall. But that's not true. I will keep on visiting my adoptive family in Saskatchewan. Instead of building a wall, we will tear it down. On the contrary, we would pull down the wall of lies.

Each people will be able to define itself and manage its own society as it sees fit. That will be better for everyone. We will respect each other. That's how I see things. I hope this is how I can change the parliamentary system which, in my opinion, hasn't caught up with the times. But people still think it is democratic. But there is room for change.

I hope I'm not forgetting anything. I hope you will see things for what they are, even though it may not be pleasant.

.0515

I'm pleased that you are so interested in what I'm saying. In fact, I'm enjoying myself, since this is my first speech on my first committee. I think it will have been a good initiation.

I hope tomorrow's papers don't say that the Bloc Québécois wasted the government's precious time. That's not true. If that's your opinion tomorrow morning, I will be proud when I get up - in fact, I won't get out of bed because I will not have slept - and not because I did something marginal which was a little crazy.

We could have a standing order forcing committees to adjourn at midnight, but that wouldn't change anything. However, for now, we have to keep on talking. But I won't talk about the fact that what I'm doing may be marginal, since some government members might make that point and paint us as being crazy.

Ms Lalonde: They've done much worse.

Mr. Tremblay: That's true! History probably reveals that.

Under the current rules, we may not adjourn from midnight to 8:00 a.m. to get some sleep. I think everyone would have agreed on such a rule, but you can't change the system, because that would be too complicated.

I'll repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech: does the law rule people or do people rule the law? We have to keep on asking ourselves this question. In fact, that was one of the issues I wanted to raise. We have to keep on asking ourselves these questions.

I asked myself that question and I eventually became dismayed with the system. But now I've been given a choice: to have my own country. Well, maybe not a country, because it's known that I'm not a hard-line sovereigntist. I believe we could still live in peace even if Quebec did not become a country. In my opinion, a country is a management system which meets the needs of its population. Sovereignty is a management system for part of the population which is different.

I want to keep on working with the Americans and the Europeans and everyone else. I don't want to build a wall, quite the opposite. I'm talking about sound management. When things are going wrong in a business, it has to be run differently. When things are not going well, should you focus on your customers? Yes. You have to find out whether the company is being run well and meets the needs of consumers. I've always thought that the government or the system should be run like a business; it has to be flexible. That's the point with Quebec sovereignty. It's impossible to change anything in the federal system and I'm being given the opportunity to... We are going to create our own country, for our own family, which shares the same point of view. We are going to make the changes we feel are necessary.

Perhaps you think that not everyone shares this view. Half the population is against that option. Well, of those who voted no, many would have voted yes, but they were afraid. They are afraid that English Canada would not talk with them anymore and would turn hostile. I hope that won't happen. Yes, it's a legitimate fear, but I want both sides to live in peace.

We're different from you. I know that some Anglophones don't like the expression ``distinct society'', because they think it's a mark of superiority. But it's not. It simply means we're different. Sometimes people don't see eye to eye. Besides, I'm sure that Ms Lalonde is much more to the left than I am. I'm more to the right. But that's not serious. We can still agree. We respect each other. It's great.

Quebeckers want to manage their own country. It's not because we don't like English Canadians, not at all. We simply want to have a system which is more flexible and better able to meet the needs of Quebeckers.

.0520

It's not hard to understand. We've come to Ottawa to explain our point of view only to be branded ``country killers'', whatever you think. We are the black sheep of Parliament, the killers of Canada and of our beautiful mountains. I don't want to kill Canada, nor English Canadians, absolutely not. I just want both sides to get along better.

Just because the St. Lawrence river flows through Quebec does not mean you won't be able to use it. I hope that my family in Saskatchewan, as well as all of you who are from Quebec, from Vancouver and from other parts of the country will visit my riding and talk with me. That's my dream; it's what I want. But we are being branded as those who will destroy the beautiful canadian federation. However, our federation hasn't worked; it was a mistake. Can't we start anew, all the while respecting each other? That's my vision of how the system could be changed, a system which does not always work.

It was fascinating to listen to the parliamentary secretary's presentation. He was so very convincing; I'm sure he has said the same things to his constituents. If I was an Anglophone, I would be convinced that my member was right. We have a hard time understanding each other; we don't have the same mentality. We just have to accept our differences. That's all. Given that, what can we do?

Once in a while, it would be nice to go for a Pepsi or a beer to discuss certain issues, including our different mentalities, and even,

[English]

to switch languages, to speak in English. That's fine, that's good, and I like to speak in English. But I was too old to protect my language, but anyway....

[Translation]

I just want to say that I think we can work together, despite the fact that the presentation made earlier painted us as troublemakers. The current federal system is rigid. I don't like that. In fact, we are victims of sorts, because not only Quebec, but everyone else in Canada objects to this bill. But we are branded as troublemakers. We are doing more than what should be expected of us; we are fulfilling our role as the official opposition. Is that really the role of the Bloc Québécois? We could discuss that.

I also represent people from New Brunswick and Vancouver who, like me, believe that this bill is perhaps too strict. But no one is saying that; no one is saying that I am not the guardian of sovereignty, but the guardian of democracy. Some people like to describe me as a troublemaker, someone who wants to break the country apart, when all I really want is for life to be better for everyone.

I seem to detect a hint of rage tonight. I'm very disappointed by the statements of the parliamentary secretary who seemed to be saying that all Quebeckers want is to make trouble. I sometimes wonder why you are not the ones who want separation. I hope that that would happen. You should have told us a long time ago to leave if we weren't satisfied with you. The same thing goes for us. There wouldn't have to be any hard feelings; we can still be friends. That is my vision of things, in any case. I want to get along with everybody.

As I was saying, I worked in Banff. I think that the country, with the Rockies and the Saskatchewan Prairies, is very beautiful and is blessed with a rich cultural diversity. Separation does not mean that all of this will disappear. The opposite is true; it will be emphasized. I hope that Calgary cowboys will continue to be cowboys, and that we will continue to go to the sugar bush. I'm talking about historical culture. I don't mean to be simplistic. I don't want to be seen as someone who wants to break up the country. I simply want to propose a different solution.

This is how separation is seen: Quebec will sail off, and we will no longer see each other. But the reverse is true; we will continue to be together and continue to talk to each other. I think it will be very constructive.

.0525

[Translation]

As I was saying, I'm not really playing my true role; I'm playing the role of Official Opposition. I look forward to what the newspapers will say tomorrow. I much appreciate you listening to me this evening; it was a great pleasure. I will still have things to say, but I have already spoken for a while and other colleagues have risen so I give them the floor.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCormick): Thank you very much.

[English]

Congratulations on your first committee and your first committee speech and your first committee filibuster. You have a hat trick there in one way.

I certainly do concur with one thing you said especially, that we have a very peaceful country.

Madame Tremblay, you're next on the speaking list.

[Translation]

Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski - Témiscouata): I'm also pleased to be speaking at the Senate Committee on Human Resources Development. It is the first time I have had the pleasure to come to your committee. As Stéphane was saying, this is also my first filibuster experience, under strange circumstances. I have never experienced it. Like Stéphane, I'm sorry that there isn't a more humane way of doing this kind of work. We are dealing with people who have several responsibilities in the House, are familiar with parliamentary procedure, have already experiences what we are experiencing today and understand the role that we are playing.

Not so long ago, in 1990, members who are now part of the government were playing the role of the Official Opposition that we are playing today. They travelled throughout Canada, raised our awareness from one ocean to the other, tried to convince us that Valcourt's reform did not make any sense and would be carried out on the back of the least privileged. It was a reform that would trample regional economies. Words were not adequate to describe the reform. They said they wanted to stop the government's reform. People went down into streets and demonstrated everywhere. I remember the demonstrations in my own region. I even saw Ms. Copps tear her shirt in public. At the time she was part of the Rat Pack and she was trying to convince the people in the Lower St. Lawrence region that this reform did not make much sense.

Today we are in exactly the same situation. Last Saturday at 1 o'clock in the afternoon, I participated in a demonstration in Rivière-du-Loup with people from everywhere. These people came from the areas of Quebec, Bellechasse, the Beauce, Lower St. Lawrence, the North Coast and even Sept-Îles, Gaspésie, New Brunswick, Acadia and the Gaspé peninsula. The flags of Quebec, New Brunswick, Acadia and the cities of the Gaspé peninsula were flying. This crowd of 5,000 people walked peacefully and then assembled on the highway divider strip where there was room for everyone. This trip is at the fork of the highway going to New Brunswick.

.0530

This gathering at the crossroad was significant because at that point you can decide either to continue towards the Lower St. Lawrence and on to the Gaspé peninsula or to take the highway - in fact a two-lane road - to New Brunswick. It's rather strange that 5,000 people from these areas met at the crossroads to hear speeches.

We heard the traditional speeches that one expects to hear in this kind of demonstration, including speeches from union representatives. Coalition representatives, that is people who deal mainly with work action - a more positive word than unemployment action - as well as representatives from other groups also spoke.

When all the official speeches on the agenda were over, a woman stepped up to the platform and asked to speak. This young women of less than 30 years, who proudly wore the Acadian flag, gave a speech that particularly touched this crowd of 5,000 people. She condemned the fact that Prime Minister Chrétien was not aware of what the repercussions of this new reform will be, a reform that is worse than that of 1994, which is awful and already implemented. Her brother had sunk into despair and had committed suicide six months earlier; her husband had done the same two weeks earlier. She wondered if Mr. Chrétien was now going to take care of her two children.

There was quite an impressive silence within the crowd of 5,000. I have been marked by this forever. I was deeply saddened to see someone in that situation experiencing those intense and tragic moments, and to see this brave person able, despite her frail appearance, to speak before 5,000 people and cry out her despair. I was deeply moved and touched; I will never forget that day.

What was remarkable in that demonstration was first of all how orderly the march was. This human wave of 5,000 people marched five kilometres throughout the streets of Rivière-du-Loup, singing and chanting slogans. Fortunately it was a very nice day out.

What was most difficult for me walking with this crowd was to feel the violence bubbling within these people and to see how many of them were in despair. They do not see any way out of their predicament. They are under the impression that here in Ottawa we are completely cut off from the reality of those regions, especially those in Eastern Quebec and Eastern Canada, and Francophone New Brunswick, the poorer part of the province. We shouldn't be afraid to say it.

.0535

This is the second time that people from New Brunswick have joined Quebeckers to demonstrate. They did it once on the bridge linking the two provinces, near the Matapédia Valley and the Restigouche area - they feel very close to New Brunswick, because the border is not far, in the Lower St. Lawrence area, near Rivière-du-Loup.

I saw the despair these men and women who feel that we in Ottawa live in a bubble and we do not know what is happening outside of Parliament Hill. These are people who want to work, who do not want to sit and do nothing. Foresters told us that they would love to work 12 months a year. But what can they do when they can't go into the forest because the snow prevents them from doing so? What can they do? They're asking us for work.

For example, has someone thought of establishing processing plants so that people who cannot work in the forest can come out of the forest and perhaps do other work at this processing plant, in the area? No, instead agreements are signed to export our wood and these are very bad agreements. The lumber agreement, for example, is very harmful to the economy of exporting regions such as ours.

And what can we ask fishermen to do? The fishermen are saying: What can we do when we can't fish, when there is no more fish to catch? You have seen the fights over crab quotas. You can see the problems these people have to deal with.

There is however a certain amount of complicity between business and governments. General Motors, for example, has always been authorized to suspend its employees for a certain amount of time and put them on unemployment insurance because that helped the company make considerable savings and balance its budget. People who mention that feel that there has always been a certain complicity between the government and those they call ``the big pockets'', that is to say those who have money. People are having a hard time understanding why this reform is being carried out on their backs when there is this complicity with big businesses who are making enormous profits and can lay-off employees when it is convenient, whereas a small business that attempts with difficulty to create two, three, four, or five jobs ends up having to lay-off one or two people because it cannot maintain its turnover and deal with the problems.

I was very impressed by that demonstration. It was the first time I felt that way and yet I have been involved in a number of demonstrations during my working life. I was an active union member for a long time and we organized all sorts of demonstrations and boycotts. They were often successful, and I remember we even managed to force a company into bankruptcy, which made us very happy. That was one of our greatest victories because the company had far too much disregard for its employees. And when you boycott a business in a city like Rimouski there aren't many people who will buy that business's product. In the end, the business had to be sold.

Let me tell you what I noticed about that demonstration. What struck me most was the potential violence that could erupt in Eastern Quebec and Eastern Canada. You mustn't dissociate Eastern Quebec from Eastern Canada because there is a sense of solidarity between the Maritimes and Quebec.

In fact, just think back to all the protests that started last December, in Mr. Young's own riding, when there was live television coverage of a meeting between Mr. Young and its constituents. I don't know whether English Canada was informed of that meeting. I know that RDI rebroadcast it from coast to coast, but I don't know whether Newsworld or CBC did.

.0540

That was very enlightening. The meeting lasted more than an hour and it was broadcast live. I think they had to stop broadcasting because Mr. Young was getting into an increasingly awkward position with its constituents who were criticizing him for not keeping his word, for having been elected under false pretences and having introduced a reform that made absolutely no sense for Eastern Canada.

Then you saw the demonstration move to different ridings held by members representing New Brunswick francophone regions. RDI broadcast one of those demonstrations live as well. The member of Parliament asked the police to step in so that he could get away from his constituents who wanted to beat him up.

The demonstration then moved from New Brunswick to Quebec. It is important to note that it did not move to Western Canada. Ontario has too many things to sort out with Harris and doesn't have time to demonstrate against the Canadian government. That is the Canadian government's saving grace for the time being,because Ontarians think the provincial government is even worse than the federal government. So for the time being, Ontarians are not demonstrating the same way other Canadians are. Moreover, in Western Canada, the unemployment rate is so much lower than in Eastern Canada that people don't feel they need to express their dissatisfaction to the same extent.

But they will probably wake up next September, when they want to collect their unemployment insurance, they will no doubt realize that the reform has changed things.

You could sense people's despair in many ways. First of all, it was surprising to see the number of people wearing masks during the demonstration, as if they wanted to remain anonymous, as though they didn't want people to know that some day they might do something very reprehensible.

I personally spoke with a number of demonstrators urging them to remain calm and to be open to discussion. But several of them told me they had had enough: ``We are sick and tired of holding demonstrations, fed up with trying to meet our members of Parliament to explain our real problems, tired of preparing briefs, tired of sending people to represent us, tired of attending hearings, in fact, tired of existing, because no one will listen to us and because the Liberals are planning a reform which they themselves would be the first to denounce if they were in opposition.''

People are under the clear impression that the government is not listening to Canadians. We asked many questions in the House, but people have told us that the time for speeches has passed. It is no longer a question of finding some way to be heard and nobody is listening to speeches anymore.

I am convinced that if we do not do something, make some radical changes to this reform, the Liberals will soon have a huge crisis on their hands because people will be fraught with despair. Several people are at the end of their rope. I think the Liberal government, the Liberal caucus, or some members who may still have some social conscience worthy of the Liberal Party, should meet with some regional authorities to find out what the situation is really like.

.0545

You know, the famous unemployment rate is the biggest joke of the century. We are led to believe that one region might have an unemployment rate of 6%, whereas another might have an unemployment rate of 11%.

I have always wanted to publicly unveil that ridiculous way of setting unemployment rates and to crow about it. The unemployment rate in my own riding is 23%! In some areas of Gaspé and New Brunswick, apparently the unemployment rate is 12 or 13%, which is comforting to politicians. But the unemployment rate could reach 33%. If you count everyone of legal working age up to the legal age of retirement, all those who would want to work, who can work but cannot find a job, in some areas, you would end up with 33% of the working population being unemployed.

Let's stop revelling in insignificant figures like 10, 11 or 12% unemployment and face the facts. You were elected by promising jobs, jobs, jobs. We were reminded of that during the demonstration. Even if I'm willing to admit that 400,000, 500,000 or even 800,000 jobs have been created since you came to power, I still think that with another government in power, and even if we had been in power, the numbers would have been the same.

Let's stop crowing over all this and stop saying we are job creators. There has been a shortage of jobs for a number of years now. In the last five years of the Mulroney regime, there was already a shortage of 200,000 jobs per year because times were difficult.

When you came into office, there was already a deficit of a million jobs. My figures are perhaps within 200,000 jobs, but that is not very significant, if you take the whole country into account. There was already a shortage of jobs and there has not yet been enough job creation to respond to the demand from young people who should enter the work force and to provide jobs to everyone.

In a region like mine, there are a great number of forestry workers. One came to speak on behalf of forestry workers. When he started working, it would take 25 men to do the work it now takes one machine to do it. The problem is that the other 24 workers were laid off, went on unemployment and then welfare. One was kept on, the one running the machine. The other 24 were pushed aside.

I realize that progress is a good thing, but unfortunately, no one thought of what to do with those 24 men. How would they be kept busy? That's what people are wondering. That is something that should be considered. I am sure you are as uncomfortable about this reform as we are. You can't be possibly be comfortable with it.

I, too, was once a member of the Liberal Party. I still receive correspondence from the Liberal Party of Canada. My name has not yet been struck from their list even though I am a member of Parliament for the Bloc Québécois. There was a time in Canada where, to feel comfortable as a citizen, I had to be a member of the Liberal Party because this was the party that best suited my ideology, my values.

I have a great deal of admiration for Mr. Lester B. Pearson and for certain other individuals who were ministers in the Trudeau Government, people who tried to leave their mark and to give us a social conscience, social justice, a redistribution of wealth.

.0550

I must tell you that I was struck by the despair of many of the people demonstrating on the weekend and I am very concerned about what could happen if the members of the Liberal Party do not meet with Mr. Young. I am sure that you can do something so that at least people understand clearly what the objectives of this reform are.

The way the people see it, the objective of your government is to find a way to indirectly tax citizens so that you can bring down your deficit. They feel that you want to penalize seasonal workers making the unemployed feel guilty and unhappy and putting an end to cheating. No doubt certain objectives of this reform are good and the Bloc Québécois agrees that reform is needed. However, we cannot continue in this fashion.

I have always been interested in finding ways to put a stop to certain types of abuse. I will give you an example. For 35 years, I worked at a university and never understood why certain employees who worked from September to April could not be transferred elsewhere or fired. These people were support staff and they were unionized. When the university year was over, at the end of April, they went on unemployment for May, June, July and August. These people collected unemployment insurance when they had what we refer to as steady, unionized, permanent jobs. They could not be fired because they were protected by their collective agreements. I never understood why these people were eligible for unemployment insurance unless it was because the government saw this as a means of balancing university budgets or giving less grants to universities. It is all of this confusion or this lack of transparency that let us, at one point, to say that we could no longer continue paying like that, that we had to stop and change things.

I agree that reform is needed but we are cutting so many things. The Mulroney Government began the process. When you arrived, you found information in crates and files, and most senior officials did not make a great deal of noise. Although the Liberals were now in power, the senior officials simply continued to do the same work for their superiors, the deputy ministers and the ministers, to whom they said that this is what was needed so that Canada could work. And you went ahead with the same policy. This is why people often say that, regardless of whether they are Conservatives or Liberals are in power, we feel that the mandarins in the government are the ones who are leading the way, with a few exceptions. From time to time, the prime minister may make a decision, but, generally speaking, this is how it happens.

Although you have cut a lot of things, one gets the impression, looking at it from the outside, that a great deal of noise is being made about unemployment, cutbacks, transfers to the provinces, reduced services in health and post-secondary education, as if these cutbacks should hit people who are just barely getting by and as if the government wanted to make sure that the citizens were aware of the fact that cutbacks were being made. And yet, we continue to waste a great deal. The army wastes a great deal.

Every morning, when I see the deputy minister who lives in my building leave with her chauffeur and limousine, I personally find this odious. She should do like everyone else does, walk to Parliament Hill or take a taxi or buy a car. There is no reason why deputy ministers should have chauffeurs with limousines.

Nor do I feel that it is normal to pay deputy ministers more than the ministers. There are abuses in the system and there are mandarins in the government that in some ways scorn democracy.

.0555

We were not able to be part of this debate on the reform anymore than you were. I would really have liked to be a little bird so that I could have really followed the debate of the 175 or 176 Liberal members of Parliament who told their government how they wanted the reform to take place. However, my impression is that it's the government that told the members: ``Here's the reform package and you're going to defend it according to our terms''.

What is somewhat surprising is that this reform was concocted under Axworthy who is known, across Canada, as being one of the most left-wing members of the Liberal Party. At one point, it was said that he was so far left that it was hurting his chances of replacing Mr. Chrétien, because nobody wanted someone who was so left-wing.

One even got the impression, and this is quite surprising, that in order to put himself in a good position to replace Mr. Chrétien, Mr. Axworthy renounced several of his basic principles and provided us with a reform package that really looked as if it bore the stamp of the Reformers.

This reform is so right-wing that it is worthy of the Reformers. It makes such short shrift of the desires or real requirements of the citizens that I am asking myself whether, if the Reformers won the next election, they could do anything that would be more right-wing than the Liberals in reforming the unemployment insurance system.

We do not know what really would happen if you did not make any changes. I do not want to be an alarmist, but I am trying, for once - usually my fuse is much shorter - to talk to you in a rather cordial fashion in an effort to appeal to your deepest values, so that you would talk to your government and become the interpreters and the spokesperson of the people who are fed up and who do not want to see this reform go through in its present form.

Everyone wants a reform but not the one that is there, not that one. I would like you to spend two minutes in the shoes of an insurance salesman. Let us suppose that you, the Liberals, have a company and, in order to make your living, you have to sell employment insurance to workers. You have to take your suitcase and sell policies to all the workers. You're going to tell them: ``Here are the conditions. You pay so much and, if you lose your job, I will pay you under these conditions''. I am pretty convinced that you will not find one worker out of a hundred who'd want to buy your insurance as it is so unlikely that they would ever be paid if they lost their jobs. Your company would therefore quickly go bankrupt.

Unfortunately, you dig into the pockets of taxpayers who have no choice but to pay. You dig into the pockets of companies and you tell them that they must pay so much for every hour of work performed whereas you don't pay out one cent.

Government logic is like this: Your money, I will take it and I'll do what I want with it. I will set the conditions unilaterally even if that doesn't suit you and I will give you money when it suits me and under my conditions, because I have to keep most of the money I collect in order to reimburse my deficit. I'm not smart enough to make cuts quickly enough in the right places.

Click here to go to next section

Return to Committee Home Page

;