Crucial Fact

  • Her favourite word was problem.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as NDP MP for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac (New Brunswick)

Lost her last election, in 2004, with 28% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Poverty March 25th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, finally, the Prime Minister has recognized the problem of the homeless and appointed a minister responsible. He has now to provide her with the resources necessary to resolve the problem.

The new minister must also have the freedom to criticize the government policy that gives rise to poverty.

In order to ensure real success, is the government prepared to strike a parliamentary committee where all the parties will be represented to assist the minister in her job and to make sure that the problems of the poor and the homeless are eliminated and not simply hidden under a title?

Government Services Act, 1999 March 23rd, 1999

Exactly. Some cuts don't heal. We have our workers in national parks. We have a whole team that is trying to fight this, the team at table 2.

I was actually one of these members when I was elected because I was the GS. I am not inventing this. I was one of them. I was actually sitting at table 2.

When I was elected in 1997, I was a member of the table 2 negotiating team. The table 2 members are as follows.

The negotiating team at table 2 is Paul Anstey representing the Atlantic. We have Gary Smith, Rene Kitson, John Shaw, Gary Fraser representing B.C., Paul Brewer, Leslie Hamill, Judith Scott representing NCR, Kevin King, Steve Covell representing the prairies, Mike Benoit, John Irving representing Ontario, Abdelkader Elkak, known as ElKak, Denis Dupre representing Quebec, Byrun Shandler representing the north, Nycole Turmel as an officer, and the negotiator is Luc David. Their researcher is Doug Marshall.

It is important to recognize these workers because they have been fighting at the table. They have been fighting for all the blue collar workers. It is important. There is a team that wanted to negotiate.

Unfortunately, the other side, the Treasury Board, had no intention of negotiating. It does not need to negotiate any more. It pretends that employees have the right to strike, until there is a disruption, such as this rotating strike, a little inconvenience here and there. We have to remember that when employees inconvenience us a little bit, they are fighting for our children's future.

My 13 year old will be looking for a job, hopefully when he is out of university, that is if I am still here and can afford to put him through university. I may be back to where I was before. Today a lot of poor people will never go to university, but let us assume my child will make it through university. I want him to be able to find a good job with good security and with half decent pay.

That is all the negotiators are asking for. They are asking for what we want for our children.

But the thinking is that, because there are strikes that inconvenience us, we must stop this, that and the other. These people are fighting for our children's future.

Do people who earn good money today know why that is? Is it because we have a government that offered everything?

Who negotiated the good benefits enjoyed by employees nowadays? Who negotiated leave to care for a sick child. Who negotiated health insurance? The unions did. These benefits were not handed over on a platter. This was negotiated in the hope that it would benefit our children, our children's children, and would last a long time.

But governments keep on wanting to destroy it all. It is important for Canadians to understand that workers are fighting for them. They are fighting for young people. We have young pages working here. They will want to have good jobs later on. They will want to buy a house, have a family. People cannot do this if they do not earn money. They cannot do this if they do not enjoy job security. We know the government does not want to give it to us unless we fight for it. It is important to remember how things work.

For the past two years, federal employees have been trying to negotiate a collective agreement with Treasury Board. It is very difficult to negotiate with a government which is still promoting inequality in this country. The gap between the rich and the poor is widening. Hundreds of thousands of people are homeless across the country and the government keeps on closing its eyes.

Thousands of unemployed workers have no income while there is a $25 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund.

These decisions perpetuate inequalities in this country, let us not forget it. Canadians must remember this. The government wants to ignore all kinds of people. What was the unfair treatment of students at the APEC summit in Vancouver all about?

Another example of the unfairness encouraged by the Liberal government is its refusal to abide by the decision of the human rights tribunal on pay equity. It is all the same. I myself was a victim of pay inequity when I was a CR and an ST. Promises are things of the past. They are forgotten now that they got elected.

They are saying: “Sorry, we do not need to keep our promises. We only make promises to get elected”. We remember that. The elections in Nova Scotia are a case in point. The results of the next elections in Nova Scotia remain to be seen. I believe there is a risk in New Brunswick as well. I could name many more.

Even today we see another example of unfairness. The federal government is refusing to recognize a national pay rate, which means equal pay for equal work. This is not complicated.

It is time this government shouldered its responsibilities and did the right thing for its workers.

One Liberal member appears to believe that MPs' salaries are not the same country-wide. Let us correct that immediately. My salary as an MP—not my operating budget, but our actual salary, the cheque that is made out to me—is the same as that of a member for Vancouver or for Winnipeg. The salaries are equal, unless a person is a minister or a parliamentary secretary. Perhaps, though, the Liberals are paying themselves more. That may be what is going on.

Speaking of raises in salary, I was in table 2 for the negotiations. Then I was elected, and then people said to me “Now you will be in a position to vote yourself an increase”. Imagine that.

Public servants can never turn up at the table and announce “Mr. President of Treasury Board, we have voted ourselves a raise, and that is what we want”. But we can. I did not accept my raise, because I do not believe in such a system. It is a rotten system.

There are some employees who want to sit down and negotiate. They accept that they cannot give themselves a raise like we can, but even then we have to contend with a Liberal government that has refused to negotiate.

When we see that MPs can vote themselves a raise, this raises questions. A recommendation was even made for there not to be a raise, but it was not heeded. A committee decides whether we should have a salary increase or not, and we have to accept these decisions.

We were able to give ourselves an 8% increase as MPs, but how many public service employees got an 8% increase? We must not forget that 8% of $25,000 is a lot less than 8% of $65,000. And yet this is what we see, and it goes on.

Let us look at employment insurance. In the Atlantic region, we would say we are being hit on again, and again and again. When they made these cuts, 31 of 32 members were Liberal. When that all changed after the federal election, they said “What will we do? No one is representing the Atlantic”. Things could not have been worse than when there were 31 out of 32. The 31 of the 32 said to the other members “Go ahead, cut. Forget the Atlantic”.

At least today, there are voices speaking on behalf of the poor, women and workers seeking justice and the elimination of the discrimination to be found in regional rates, workers who are working very hard and who deserve the very best.

Government Services Act, 1999 March 23rd, 1999

—In PEI, my salary was the same in Prince Edward Island as it would have been in Vancouver. This is fair, because these positions were evaluated and the same salary was paid for the same work. This is not complicated.

When I bought my milk in Prince Edward Island, where I was a CR, I was paying the same price as the GS who worked in Prince Edward Island national park. However, that person was paid less than the one working in the national park in British Columbia.

How can this government tell us it is impossible to remove this discrimination for all sorts of reasons?

It is not hard to understand. It does not matter where one lives. Do we really think people living in Newfoundland are paying less for their food than someone in central Canada? Newfoundlanders are being paid less and I can guarantee that they are not paying less for their groceries. It is the opposite. We have a government today that keeps pushing inequity and discrimination among employees.

I am hoping that Canadians are realizing what these employees are asking for. It is simple. They just want to be paid the same amount of money for the same work they are doing no matter where they are living in this country. The way it is now, the government has actually divided the whole country. Depending on where one lives a different salary is being paid.

I want to stress that when a secretary is working in New Brunswick, if that secretary is a CR-03 that CR-03 gets the same salary as a CR-03 in B.C.

The loaf of bread for the CR-03 in New Brunswick is the same price as the GS category in New Brunswick whose salary is up to $3 less than the one in B.C.

If anybody can figure this one out and say it can be justified I will be available after my 20 minutes to sit down and listen to their argument. There is no argument even though my colleague from P.E.I. on the other side of the House is saying there is an argument. There is no argument, none that makes sense to anybody.

We do not have to be accountants to figure this one out. I worked in both those positions and not once did my level of standards change because I was into one and then the other. I still had to pay the same amount for everything.

It is very important that the public realize that what we are talking about here is total discrimination. Every blue collar worker across the country should be supported on this because the only thing we are fighting for in the House is justice and equality.

We have a government that loves inequality. Look at the pay equity issue. We have the Prime Minister's signed letters saying “Yes, we shall honour the tribunal decision”. All of a sudden they get the decision and oops, no, I guess he is allowed to change his mind.

But that does not make it right. This government likes to say one thing and do another. The regional rates affect 1,500 people in Atlantic Canada. These people work in Kouchibouguac national park, Fundy national park, Louisbourg and Cape Breton Island. They are everywhere. All they are asking for is to be paid fairly for their work like their colleagues in other parts of the country.

We depend on blue collar workers. We need them. There are firefighters, hospital workers, workers in national parks. They supply goods and services to Canadian military troops. They fight fires in national defence bases. In some airports unfortunately they are starting to disappear because they are cutting them. In Nova Scotia 22.1% were cut, 24.4% in New Brunswick and 27% in Newfoundland. Instead of getting rid of the regional rates of pay we will just get rid of the employees and take care of the problem. I guess that is the direction the government is taking.

Government Services Act, 1999 March 23rd, 1999

Madam Speaker, having been an employee of Parks Canada and been in the GS group, I understand the situation well, but it is still very difficult to comprehend what is going on with what we have before us today.

Today, for the 50th time, the government has resorted to time allocation and closure. Not only is it denying Canadians the right to strike, but it is denying democratically elected members of parliament the right to debate it.

Members will not have the time to debate this bill forcing a return to work and will not have the time to properly study it to make changes to it.

What I am saying here is that we were elected democratically to debate issues in the House. Unfortunately due to this undemocratic process we cannot debate it in the House like we should be allowed to.

As my colleague from Winnipeg Centre was saying yesterday, the bill was prepared on the run. There is no mention of Nunavut, for example. It does not harmonize regional rates; it does not reflect the best offers the government made at the bargaining table. The blue collar workers have not had a salary increase in years, but the workload has increased because a number of jobs have been cut.

Regional rates of pay discriminate against 14,000 blue collar workers in Canada, including 1,500 in the Atlantic provinces. Atlantic federal blue collar workers are the ones most discriminated against. We get discriminated against quite often in the Atlantic.

Can someone argue that a maritimer deserves less money than a westerner doing the same job? That is what we are seeing here. This government seems to think it can.

It is important to look at the situation. Employees are asking the government to eliminate the discrimination that exists with regional rates of pay. It all seems very complicated. The government is trying to tell us that it keeps regional rates because they are in line with those in the regions' private sector, but we have proof that this is not true.

From 1981 to 1997, when I worked for the public service, I held several positions in the CR and GS groups. When I was a CR, that is a clerk—

Public Service March 23rd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, in their election platform, the Liberals pledged to comply with pay equity legislation. They also promised to abolish regional rates of pay for blue collar workers in the public service.

What is happening today? The Liberals are imposing back to work legislation. This is a punitive measure. It is unacceptable to treat loyal public servants in this fashion.

These regional rates are unfair to 11,000 workers in Canada, including 1,500 in the maritime provinces. Treasury Board said that if regional rates of pay were eliminated, it would be hard to keep old employees and hire new ones. In Nova Scotia, a carpenter working in the private sector earns $20.49 per hour, compared to $13.92 in the federal public service.

Is it fair to pay less money to a blue collar in New Brunswick than to a blue collar in British Columbia who does the same work?

The time has come for the government to put an end to the discrimination against workers in the regions, and to negotiate, not legislate, a work contract.

Division No. 360 March 23rd, 1999

Madam Speaker, what does my colleague in the Reform Party think of legislating workers who are not even on strike? This is what is happening. I have a serious problem with back to work legislation, to start with, but even more of a problem with legislating something that is not happening yet.

We are living in a democratic country. The prison guards are not on strike. Let us face it. They have been working and getting paycheques, but the government acts as if they have been on strike all this time. I guess it got a pretty good deal, if we look at it that way.

What is the member's feelings on legislating workers that are not on strike?

Canadian Francophone Community March 18th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, linguistic duality is a value deeply rooted in all regions of the country. It is a value fundamental to Canadian unity. 1999 is the Year of the Francophonie in Canada. From sea to sea, we are celebrating the contribution made by millions of French-speaking Canadians to our country.

I am proud that Canada's first francophone games will be held in my riding of Memramcook from August 9 to 22. I congratulate the inhabitants of Memramcook and urge all Canadians to come to the games and pay a visit to the heart of Acadia.

Southeastern New Brunswick will also play host to francophones from around the world at the Sommet international de la Francophonie to be held in Moncton in September.

In this Year of the Francophonie, the NDP hopes that one of the first things the government will do to demonstrate its commitment to francophone communities will be to respect the Official Languages Act.

On RDI this morning, journalist Rosaire L'Italien received only an English copy of the kit announcing the year of the Francophonie. How are we to take this government seriously?

Budget Implementation Act, 1999 March 17th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a constituent of mine by the name of Ange Vautour who is celebrating his 75th birthday today, my father whom I love dearly, could my colleague explain to both me and my father what is in the budget, and again how the deficit was paid?

The Reform Party mentions that we are attracting companies here because of the low wages. I would like my colleague to explain to the House what exactly the Liberal government has done to make sure that people are forced to work not only for minimum salary, but I have a feeling that a lot of people in this country are working below minimum salary.

Competition Act, 1998 March 10th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, on March 2, I put a question in the House to the Minister of Human Resources Development on employment insurance.

I pointed out to him that his government had given responsibility for the programs to the province, but without attaching conditions when it transferred the money, which resulted in a great muddle.

Based on the response my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst was given earlier, it is clear that the government understands nothing at all. They might understand something if they came to New Brunswick to see the situation, but we know the minister is afraid of coming. We might ask why he is afraid. He says there are only 2,000 gappers.

I think we ought to define the word “gapper”. Gappers are people whose EI benefits are cut before they start working again. The unfortunate part is that, when the minister called his officials today, they forgot to tell him what a gapper was. I am explaining it to him, and I hope his parliamentary secretary will pass on the definition of gapper, because we have a serious problem.

He said there are 2,000 gappers in the province. I know that in the Moncton and Beauséjour—Petitcodiac ridings there are 12,000, or 11,954 to be exact.

I got these figures from department officials. These are not statistics, they are active files. They do not include maternity leave or sick leave. They are applications for benefits, active applications from people who will run out of benefits before their job starts. It is not hard to understand. There are not just 2,000 in New Brunswick. The minister has to come and see. We know he is afraid.

Today, I presented two petitions. There were 2,700 names of people from my riding, people who are concerned about cuts to employment insurance, people from rural regions that have been included in urban areas. Still the minister refuses to make changes.

In the department, they talk about investment in the regions. They neglected to say how much they had taken out of our regions following the cuts to the employment insurance program. New Brunswick loses $275 million a year. My riding is out $35.8 million a year, and they would have us believe no one is going hungry.

Two weeks ago, I visited a number of food banks. Demand was up sharply in seven out of eight. And what was the major reason for this increase? EI cuts. So, when the minister says there are 2,000 gappers, the other 10,000, or 15,000, or 16,000, or 20,000 are getting their meals from food banks.

I also learned from my visits that, when people turn to the welfare department of Camille Thériault's government for financial assistance, they are given a chit for the food bank. It is truly disgraceful that a provincial government treats people this way.

The federal government is taking these people's last penny away, then the provincial government does the same thing. Both are Liberal governments; one would sometimes think they were in cahoots. Camille says not to worry, that these people should be sent his way because food bank workers are very generous nowadays.

We must congratulate the volunteers and all the families that give food to food banks because, without their support, many people would suffer from hunger, since neither the province nor the federal government is looking after them.

The government says that many women are covered. The fact is they contribute, but they do not qualify for benefits. I am not making that up, I can see what is going on. Women hold part time jobs. Therefore, how can they work the 910 hours required? The minister must come to see the reality in New Brunswick, because he will never understand what is going on until he comes and sees it for himself.

Petitions March 10th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the second petition contains 700 names and is from the region of Albert County, Salisbury and Petitcodiac.

The petition urges the government to take the area out of urban EI zoning and put it in rural where it should be.