Angela Vautour

[Young Offenders Act, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough is asking the government to increase the federal share of financial support for the provision of the Young Offenders Act with the eventual goal of dividing the cost on a 50:50 basis between the Government of Canada and the provincial and territorial governments.

One would think this is not a big thing to ask for. If the federal government wants to keep an eye on what is happening it terms of crime prevention, health care or education across the country, it should expect to pay its fair share. That is really what is being asked here.

This also means that many problems are created by government policies and regulations—provincial or federal. On the subject of crime prevention, many of the decisions taken are taken in such a way that it appears crime prevention was not the first thought.

The more invested in crime prevention, the lower the crime rate. Our young people who live in poverty cannot afford a post-secondary education and parents cannot send their children to daycare. These are things that lower the country's crime rate. We need governments that give priority to prevention.

We can talk about prevention as well in the context of halfway houses for battered women. Too many regions do not have such facilities for these women. They do not have the opportunity to stay in a safe location so they may make good decisions for themselves and their children. It is important to have such facilities, and that is what the majority of Canadians think.

We have to remember that. Often when youths commit crimes we want to throw them in jail and throw away the keys. That is not the solution. We have to look at the cause, why young offenders are in that situation. We need resources available to prevent children from being in that situation. Once they are we definitely need resources to help them out of those bad situations and put them in very good environments.

Unfortunately, with child poverty increasing on a daily basis, one goes with the other. If I look at just my area, in one week there were three bank robberies in small communities of 200 in one and 2,000 in the other. We have to look at that situation very seriously. The increase in poverty is certainly a big factor in crime. A woman in the Saint John area was badly beaten during a robbery.

If we look behind why all these things are happening we can track it to the individual not having resources available. I see it with teachers all the time who tell me that they do not have the resources to help the kids identified in our schools as needing help.

I was speaking with a friend who is a French teacher in Newfoundland. They have been told that in order to get a psychologist in their school they would have to let a regular teacher go. There are all kinds of situations in that school where children and their families need counselling. We have to look at the causes. When parents do not have a job or are the working poor it certainly does not help. We did not see any new funding going toward that.

There is really nothing in the budget to help in this regard. If the federal government wants to have input with the provinces, it has to pay its half. This applies to health care too. The government found itself in a very difficult situation at one point. It used to pay 50% of health care costs but this percentage has now dropped to 11%. The figure might rise to 12.5%.

It is very difficult for the federal government to say to a province “I want you to provide these services in this way”, when it contributes only 5% or 6% of the funding.

I have a 13-year old son and a little girl who is three years old, but I have no idea what the future holds for Mathieu and Mélissa. I hope they will stay on the straight and narrow. That is all we can do, to hope, because our children have to make their own decisions.

It is certainly good for them that their mother has a job, and it was great that I could work or be on employment insurance when I was off work, because there was food on their plates and a roof over their heads. I was perfectly capable of supporting them as a seasonal worker because, in those days, we could still get benefits between jobs. Without this income, I cannot imagine how those years would have unfolded. There was also education, including the post-secondary education I had access to.

We must ensure that our young people today have access to education and that they do not end up $40,000 in debt after completing a four-year university degree.

That is often the case, and we are not helping our young people with decisions that makes life harder and harder for them, when they have no job prospects at graduation.

The New Democrats believe that the government needs to invest in families by providing access to child care, support for parents and labour policies that encourage employers to respect family obligations.

I must say that I was lucky. All the years I worked, I was with the public service, so I had benefits. If my son was sick, I was entitled to five days a year at least to look after him. I also had a drug plan, which also covered replacements for eyeglasses. That helps a lot.

The federal government must make a real commitment to provide funding to the provinces for more community policing and to increase support services for both the rehabilitation of youth and support for victims of youth crime.

The NDP fully supports the motion before the House and encourages the government to adopt it and take immediate action to address the chronic underfunding of our justice system.

I think this is important. We ought to support this motion because the future of our young people is at stake. They are the ones who will be running this country in the future. We must look after them today to ensure that they will be there in the future.

[Children, February 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has made a lot of promises: getting rid of regional rates of pay, the GST, and more importantly, child poverty, none of which it kept.

At one time the Liberals talked about attacking child poverty and providing child care to allow parents to take full time, family supporting jobs. They have not done so. Budget after budget more and children became poor. It is continuing. The child care promise also disappeared along with pay equity and abolishing the GST promise.

This Liberal government does not seem to understand that in order to eliminate child poverty we need to do away with their parents' poverty. The NDP has always supported the creation of a national child care program. We believe that children deserve a chance to show what they can do.

Parents have been waiting for six years for this government to keep its promise. Canada's children deserve the chance to build a better future.

[The Budget, February 17th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois, whose riding is very close to New Brunswick.

Does he agree with me that, in the budget, there is absolutely nothing for the unemployed—the finance minister confirmed he had used the surplus accumulated on the backs of the unemployed to reduce the debt and hand out goodies—nothing for the fishing industry, which is in a critical situation, nothing at all for small and medium size businesses and zilch for rural development?

In regions where unemployment is sky high, like my riding, some people stopped receiving EI cheques two weeks ago. The work will not resume before June and they have nothing to live on till then. People in Albert County collected employment insurance benefits for 18 weeks.

That is all they got. They did not get 19 weeks or 22 weeks, just 18, because the Minister of Human Resources Development still considers them to be from the Moncton area, in spite of the fact that they are an hour away from Moncton by car.

At the same time, with this budget, a hockey player earning $1 million a year will save $8,000 in tax this year. By comparison, people who earn $10,000—and there are many in my region who earn as little as $10,000 a year—will save $51. And we are supposed to be kissing the finance minister's feet for that today?

Did I miss something in the budget or can my colleague corroborate what I just said?

[Veterans Affairs, February 16th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, our veterans went off to war to defend our rights, and it is because of the sacrifices they made that we have our freedom today.

November 11 is not the only day on which we commemorate these sacrifices. Another important custom allows veterans to wear their ceremonial dress at church funerals.

A recent directive prevented veterans from continuing to observe this custom in certain churches in southeastern New Brunswick. Many years ago, veterans took up arms to defend their strong belief in the freedom of our country.

I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the efforts of the president of the Richibucto Legion, Henri Pietraszko, and to congratulate all the veterans and their families.

I also wish to thank Mgr. Ernest Léger for the understanding he has shown these veterans. Clearly, this is a custom they hold very dear.

Once again, congratulations, and a vote of thanks to Mgr. Léger.

[Employment Insurance, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the upshot of the reform is that the minister is refusing to visit New Brunswick. So much for his reform.

The minister's figures are incorrect. According to statistics from his department, in southeastern New Brunswick alone, 12,000 claimants will be without income for weeks and months.

Will the minister again contradict his own department's statistics, or will he help Canadians who are now destitute, who have no job and are not receiving benefits because of the cuts made by this government, which is completely heartless and unfeeling and only looks after the rich?

[Employment Insurance, February 2nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this government has been telling us that its UI reform has been benefiting Canadians.

Could the Minister of Human Resources Development explain to the unemployed and to small and medium businesses how cutting $275 million annually from the New Brunswick economy and $524 million annually from the Newfoundland economy has benefited them?

At the same time, this government is bragging that it has a UI surplus. Will the minister guarantee to Canadians that this year the UI surplus will go toward improving benefits for the unemployed and put a stop to the disgusting hardship caused to the families and communities in this country?

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his answer.

I wonder if he is aware of the situation in which the Department of Human Resources Development could accuse an individual applying for benefits of fraud and force them to repay money, even though they have never received a cent from the government.

This situation has occurred in the Atlantic provinces. There are people there who apply and then go on to find a job. They report it on their card, but if the amount is not exactly what they earned, even if the department has not paid them a cent, officials can come after them a year later and ask them to repay the difference between the amount they reported and the amount they actually earned working.

But neither the Department of Human Resources Development nor any other department paid the individual applying for benefits a single cent. The individual never got a cent, but can be asked to repay the difference. Is the hon. member aware of this situation?

[Finance, February 1st, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Bloc Quebecois member for his comments.

He is very familiar with the employment insurance issue, and he is aware that it is a very important issue in New Brunswick. Our province has suffered losses of $927 million in revenues.

Whenever we put a question to him, the Minister of Human Resources Development tells us that he is giving back $5 million here and $2 million there, through various programs. My riding of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac is losing $35.8 million every year. People in Albert County only collected employment insurance benefits for 18 weeks, even though they live in rural areas. Also, fewer and fewer women qualify for the program.

We have a surplus that keeps increasing and that will exceed $20 million. We know that poverty is on the rise in every region where unemployment is high.

Could the hon. member tell us what he thinks the government will do, more specifically the Minister of Human Resources Development, who is always trying to make us believe that 72 per cent of workers qualify for unemployment insurance benefits and that his government is putting money back into the regions? Is the Minister of Human Resources Development telling us what his government is really doing?

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important bill and I think we should have all the time that is needed to make sure, or maybe I should say more time to try to convince the government that this is a lot of crap, I guess.

Being a new member, I have seen government members being able to cut things short when something is not suitable to them. Certainly this is a very important bill and I think we should have decent time to debate it.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, December 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting to listen to the members who spoke on Bill C-43, especially the government members. It is quite clear they are avoiding telling the truth.

I am a former member of the Public Service Alliance. I worked for Parks Canada, the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Human Resources Development. I am well aware of the gimmicks the government uses to get rid of a large number of public servants.

It was announced 45,000 to 55,000 jobs were going to be cut across the country. Services will go with the jobs. The government has found a way to eliminate 40,000 jobs. It has decided to establish a new agency. By so doing it will also break the unions. I suggest it is going to have a very difficult time getting rid of these 40,000 employees because Revenue Canada unionized workers are very well organized.

And they are not pleased. I met with their union representatives. They do not want this agency. They are tired of the insecurity. The purpose of the agency is once again to create insecurity among workers, who do not know whether or not they will have a job two to three years down the road.

The member opposite talked earlier about ASD, alternate service delivery, and he painted a very rosy picture. But what ASD is all about is clearly cutting salaries, benefits, and eventually laying off people. This is not complicated. We already saw this with Parks Canada, which is going to become an agency; workers are worried because they do not know where they will be two years from now, whether or not they will have a job, and what kind of salary they will get.

Park visitors can see they are worried because the new policy is to make a profit at any cost. The same will happen with the Canada customs and revenue agency. They say they will be collecting provincial and municipal taxes, and that it will be more efficient that way. But the hon. member did not tell us how many jobs will be cut.

Back home, in Bouctouche, the employment centre has been closed. In the Department of Human Resources Development alone, 5,000 jobs have been cut. Because of that, some employment centres and their services have disappeared. People have to travel to Richibucto, Shediac, or Moncton. Many do not go there, because a large number of them cannot afford it. So they have to do without those services.

That is what happens with those agencies and the decisions the Liberal government makes. They never stop slashing and cutting. And then they brag about their job creation record. However, they should not forget to tell us new jobs are part time jobs, low wage jobs without benefits, that make families even poorer.

Recently, the UN stated the same thing we have been saying for years. The Liberal government tells us these findings are based on the statistics for 1995. In that case, we would not like to see the statistics for 1998, because they are even worse. Canadians will not buy the argument that the statistics the UN analysed are for 1995.

How many people qualify for EI benefits today, compared to 1995? How many more children live in poverty, compared to 1995? I would be ashamed to say these are the figures for 1995. They would be better off say they are the figures for 1998. One wonders sometimes who is advising those members.

I am here today to say that we know the truth. We know that people are living in poverty. We organised a nice dinner for children who will not have any Christmas, as was already mentioned in the House. Why? Because these children are poor. We have to help them, we have to share our wealth. It is too bad that there are not more members on the government side who feel like sharing their wealth. But they only feel for banks and millionaires.

When the government talks about cutting taxes, it does not mean that poor people will pay less. No, no. Millionaires will benefit and the gap between rich and poor will grow even larger.

And then the Minister of Finance gets up and brags about doing this and that. Yet, this same government refuses to come to New Brunswick and look at the situation it created with its cuts and its new rules, regulations and legislation. The Minister of Human Resources Development fears New Brunswick more than the devil fears holy water, as we say in our neck of the woods. He does not even come close to New Brunswick, because he does not want to face what he has created. The Prime Minister who, at one time, was elected in my riding no longer has the courage to come and visit us.

The day will come when they have to face the music, because, as members know, chickens always come home to roost. If the government will not answer questions here, it will have to answer them some day.

Let us talk about the 40,000 employees who feel insecure today. Let us talk about the centralization of authority. Let us talk about the jobs we are going to lose. We do not hear anything on that score. Those who do lose their jobs, what will they find? Part time jobs, insecure jobs, jobs that will leave them even poorer than they were? This is the mandate of the Liberal governement.

We talk about taxes, we even hear members of the Progressive Conservative Party say that we ought to lower taxes. But who introduced the GST? Earlier, a Liberal member said that the opposition was there to criticize. Yet, I remember the Liberal Party promised to abolish the GST.

What happened in New Brunswick? We got a 15% tax on everything. We got a tax increase on electricity, heating and children's clothing. We do not need an agency to collect these taxes because it is already being done in New Brunswick. If they use this as an excuse, it will not wash, because taxes are already being collected. We already pay a 15% tax. It is true that we got rid of the GST, but what we got in return is even worse. Frank McKenna was very happy to have done it. I think he got a little bonus at the time.

When an agency is set up, we have to look at the facts. This is just another way to reduce job security. It is just another way to cut jobs and again, it is always the same people who are caught in the middle, those who work all year around, the middle income earners, who end up getting poorer and poorer. Some things never change.

It is no different when we talk about lowering taxes. The EI premiums were reduced by 15 cents for every $100. I found that so ridiculous. Opposition parties felt the premiums should have been reduced even further. Today, the Reform Party told the House that employees could have saved about $300 a year. Yes, but how much money was taken from our communities because people no longer get their employment insurance cheque? Is this so hard to understand?

I am not an economist or a mathematician, but the government took $20 billion from the New Brunswick economy because it made the system too complicated for people to receive employment insurance benefits. Is this not cutting into the economy? Is this not causing problems? Is this not causing problems for our small and medium size businesses?

There is no longer any money in circulation. Thousands of people received employment insurance cheques and put all that money into their community. The money of the unemployed was not going into RRSPs; they need it to live on.

Some members of parliament are saying that premiums have not been reduced enough. So now, there will be other reasons to cut benefits once again. The government will say that its surplus is not sufficient and will make cuts once again on the back of the little slave who needs his meagre cheque.

Who benefited from the 15 cent reduction on each $100 of insurable income? It is the large companies that have thousands of employees. It is not the small company that has four or five employees, or only one, or the self-employed who does not pay any premiums at all. This does not help the small employer.

Sometimes I wonder how people can go to bed at night and sleep, when we think about the billions of dollars that were taken from the economy. Almost one billion dollars was taken from the New Brunswick economy alone. The finance minister always harps on the $1.7 billion he has given back to poor families.

The government has made nearly one billion dollars worth of cuts in New Brunswick alone, and it brags about giving back $1,7 billion for the whole country. I know my maths. Believe me, it has taken away a lot more than it has given back. There is no doubt about that.

Members should look at what is going on in the hospitals. They should come and see the waiting lists in New Brunswick. I am beginning to think that the situation is not the same in all the provinces. When I go to the doctor here, in Ottawa, I am out of the clinic within 45 minutes. And I want the people who are listening to know that these are not special clinics for MPs. In and out in 45 minutes.

Try to get the same kind of service in New Brunswick. It is just impossible. We do not have the same level of service. We cannot see a doctor in less than 45 minutes in New Brunswick. I am beginning to wonder if we really do have the same level of service. Maybe there are more complaints coming from Atlantic Canada, but the fact is we have been neglected. And it is still going on. The more Liberal governments we have in Atlantic Canada, the worse it is for these provinces.

There is also the issue of pay equity. The Department of National Revenue has 40,000 employees. How many of them have been denied pay equity?

The United Nations said it. A woman from the Philippines said she would never see the day when she would criticize Canada.

We are supposed to be a model country. We were, but we no longer are, with the number of calls we receive in our offices from people who are in utterly hopeless situations. There is Albert County; the Minister of Human Resources Development refuses to recognize that some people have to drive one hour to the employment centre in Moncton to try to find a job, in vain. To qualify for employment insurance, they need the same number of hours as someone living in Moncton.

This is unacceptable. The minister is denying these people the right to qualify for employment insurance; he is denying them months of EI benefits. Why? Because he has the authority and can do what he wants. The fact that people are destitute is of no concern to him.

And now we have our infamous toll highway. Some people will have to pay $14 to go to their doctor or the hospital. How many people are going to go without care because they cannot afford the $14? The government will say they can travel on the other road, the unsafe one. It is indeed because the alternate route is not safe that this highway had to be built. However, if you are poor, if you cannot afford it, take a chance. Take the other road. This is unconscionable in a country that is supposed to be the best in the world. If I recall, we came in 10th not long ago.

The same applies to post-secondary education.

It is exactly the same thing with Bill C-43. The government says it is a good thing. We have heard that one before. Everything is good. It is good for a very small group of millionaires. Everything is good for them.

When the finance minister goes out for dinner, he does not go to the food bank. He goes out with his banker pals. They pat him on the shoulder, telling him “Keep up the good work. We are doing fine”.

Food drives are being organized because Christmas is around the corner and people have nothing to eat. Children will have no Christmas presents. Members have the nerve to criticize while I am talking. They should repeat what they are saying to the people who line up at the food banks every day to eat. This is the fastest growing industry in Canada.

They are critical because they refuse to see there is a problem in this country. That way, they can go to bed and sleep at night. They are denying reality, but reality will catch up with them one day. It is breathing down their necks.

I will conclude by saying that Bill C-43 is another attempt to destroy security, break unions and get rid of good salaries. Canadians have to realize that service are also on the way out. Once the employees are gone, so is the service.