Angela Vautour

[Division No. 300, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have my vote recorded, as I have just arrived.

[Transport, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, New Brunswickers will be paying thousands of dollars on toll fees. Consumers will be paying more for goods because of all this added tax on businesses.

How can the government allow provinces to charge such tax on highways already paid for by taxpayers? Why has the Minister of Transport chosen to protect Doug Young's interests instead of standing up for Atlantic Canadians?

[Employment Insurance, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, fewer and fewer unemployed workers are getting employment insurance benefits.

At the same time, child poverty is on the rise and the gap between rich and poor is growing. There is an obvious link between the employment insurance reform and the rise in poverty, but the Minister of Human Resources Development refuses to see it.

When will the minister visit these regions and adjust his reform, which generates so much poverty in Canada?

[Transport Canada, December 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the auditor general has revealed that Transport Canada's performance in managing and administering its highway investment shows many weaknesses.

This is nothing for New Brunswickers. New Brunswickers know about Transport Canada's mismanagement of money. Starting in January they will have to pay tolls to drive on a highway that was built as part of a federal-provincial agreement signed by former transport minister Doug Young who now heads the private company putting up tolls.

By 2001 it will cost cars up to $14 and trucks $45 for a round trip.

The now transport minister has said that measures will be taken to forbid tolls on federally funded highways in the future. However, for this deal he has chosen to protect Doug Young's interests instead of standing up for Atlantic Canadians.

New Brunswickers will have to pay tolls to drive to work, to go to a doctor or to visit friends and family. The people driving to and from Atlantic Canada will have to pay those tolls also. Atlantic Canadians will also see an increase in the price of goods.

[Canada Small Business Financing Act, November 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member just said that this government cares about small business.

I come from a region where unemployment is very high. I know the importance of making sure that small and medium size businesses are not only going to be created but that they are going to survive.

Through changes to employment insurance, $927 million has been taken out of the New Brunswick economy. We have the HST of 15% on electricity, heating fuel and children's clothing. We have toll highways that have already been paid for by both the federal and provincial governments, but they are going to cost thousands and thousands of dollars for the same small and medium size businesses that this member is saying the government cares so much about.

Members should take a look at the communities, which have been deprived of $927 million. That money was removed from rural communities where the unemployment rate was very high, where people received unemployment insurance benefits. Small businesses in these communities are not only suffering, they are closing.

The hon. member just said that her government is doing everything it can to help small and medium size businesses. How can she reconcile that statement with the fact that employers in New Brunswick have all these burdens to contend with?

[Supply, November 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois for today's motion. We are all aware of how important this is.

Since I just have a few minutes, I can only skim the surface of this issue. In New Brunswick, there are certainly major problems in health care, particularly affecting seniors. The elderly often have limited access to and pay more for health services. Since in-hospital services are being cut, they are often sent home with insufficient care.

I wish to thank the Bloc Quebecois for moving this motion in the House today so that we may discuss it.

[Canada Customs And Revenue Agency Act, October 27th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the revenue agency act is another word for privatization affecting 40,000 employees at a time when the morale is low already for a large number of employees being affected by the pay equity issue. The Liberal government is refusing to bring justice to the men and women within the Public Service Alliance, but it made a promise in 1993 that it would honour the tribunal decision.

This bill is long awaited enabling legislation required to convert Revenue Canada from a government department into an arm's length special operating agency. When the notion of the Canada customs and revenue agency was first mentioned in the 1996 Speech from the Throne, it was presented as a cost effective, more efficient vehicle for improving service to the public. However, events have overtaken the agency to the point that it fails to meet all its stated objectives. It cannot now be justified on a basis of either bureaucratic efficiency or cost effectiveness.

Its supporting arguments are riddled with contradictions, misstatements of fact and flimsy rationalization. The concept of the Canada customs and revenue agency is bad public policy and should be stopped before it starts. The agency will be a mega-person, extending Ottawa's reach down into our community and our life.

It proposes to administer everything from provincial sales taxes to gasoline taxes and liquor taxes. Its vision would see a mega-taxperson that would offer services to municipalities. Do we really want Ottawa involved in our property taxes? Do we really want to put this much power into one government agency? Of course not. However left unchecked this may very well happen.

The agency will reduce accountability to the public and to parliament. Revenue Canada, as presently structured, is fully accountable to parliament and the taxpaying public through the Minister of National Revenue. The department's policies, programs and activities are open to daily scrutiny during the House of Commons question period.

On the other hand, the Canada customs and revenue agency poses a challenge to parliamentarians as guardians of the public trust and interest. Although its promoters repeatedly stress that the new agency would be fully accountable to our elected representatives, this is misleading at best and deceitful at worst.

To gauge the commitment of the agency's promoters to parliamentary oversight, one need look no further than the senior bureaucrats April 1997 progress report. This document brazenly suggested exempting the agency's operations from fundamental principle of ministerial accountability to the House of Commons. The elitist and anti-democratic proposal was withdrawn in the face of furious opposition.

The agency will face less scrutiny from parliament than is now the case. The auditor general has expressed his concerns over protection of the public interest. An agency will likely be less concerned than a fully accountable government department in responding to questions or concerns raised by individual MPs on behalf of the public.

As an arm's length separate employer the agency would find it easier to stonewall parliament while at the same time providing a pretext for the minister of the day to shift the focus of accountability to the top agency bureaucrat, the commissioner.

The agency's enabling legislation would permit a full parliamentary review only five years after it has begun operation. A lot can go very wrong over such a broad expanse of time.

The agency could jeopardize the public's personal privacy. We live in an electronic world where more and more information about us and our families is readily bought and sold by private sector organizations, from credit card companies to charities to consumer goods companies.

Should the agency meet its stated objectives, an incredible amount of personal and financial information would be concentrated in one institution.

The agency will renew Ottawa's effort to harmonize the GST and provincial sales taxes beyond the maritimes. Originally the CCRA was conceived as a bureaucratic blunt instrument to help government keep its 1993 election promise to abolish the GST. The agency was supposed to enable Ottawa to harmonize the unpopular GST with provincial sales taxes across the country. I think it is important that we talk about the harmonization of the GST and the PST. We ended up with a terrible sales tax in New Brunswick with the HST. We now have a 15% tax on electricity, a 15% tax on heating oil and a 15% tax on children's clothing. It was an increase of 8%. That is what we got with harmonization.

It is important to point that out. It came with the harmonization of the taxes. In New Brunswick we pay huge taxes on children's clothing, on diapers, on electricity and on heating oil. The people being hit with increased taxes are the same ones being hit with toll highways at home. They have lost all sorts of income, for having lost their jobs, among other reasons.

There are also cuts in the employment centres, jobs that have been lost, employment insurance cheques that have vanished or been halved. Our taxes are now even higher, because the Liberal government refused to keep its promise to eliminate the GST.

The agency has also failed to impress small and big business. The business community, both small and large, was supposed to be the biggest beneficiary of the new agency. Small business organizations such as the Canadian Federation of Independent Business are particularly leery of the massive centralized power the agency would possess.

A full 40% of business respondents to a public policy forum study commissioned by Revenue Canada saw no advantage to the agency. More than two-thirds thought it would either increase or maintain their costs of dealing with the department as currently structured.

Actually, the agency will likely have to turn to user fees in order to deliver on its promise of cost savings. As planned, the agency would deliver the bulk of its costs by harmonizing the GST and the PST and by taking over provincial and municipal tax administration. But neither seems to be in the cards. So what is likely to happen?

One scenario would see an over-ambitious agency move to trim costs by reducing staff and services to the public. I think we have to look at that.

We know that, with an agency, the service will not improve. That has been proven in many areas. It is also a reason for cutting more jobs. The government finds reasons for cutting, and it is always the low person on the totem pole whose job is lost.

A more probable direction would see the imposition of user fees. User fees are something we see more and more of everywhere. Again, the one at the bottom with the lowest income has to pay all the user fees, be they to Revenue Canada, National Parks, trying to get a driver's licence or a medicare card. There are more and more fees and more and more people who cannot afford them.

As proposed, the agency would be empowered to set user fees for services that provide a specific benefit to service recipients. This immense loophole could see both individuals and small businesses paying additional fees for the privilege of paying their taxes.

No less a person than the auditor general has expressed his concern over the proposed agency's accountability. Denis Desautels asked in his December 1997 report to parliament: “How will Canadians and parliamentarians have assurances that the public interest is protected?” He was not able to get an answer to that question.

I want to conclude by saying that I think going to an agency is terrible for Revenue Canada. Perhaps for Parks Canada it would be all right. It is a way for government to cut and to bring down salaries. It is another word for privatization.

We must be concerned about these issues. We must understand the government has a hidden agenda. This has to stop.

[Supply, October 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we should be clear. The pilot project has to go on, and the legislation needs to be amended. If you think we have a poverty problem now, just imagine what it will be like if the government decides not to extend the pilot project.

Some people work part time all winter long. It is not true that these people all end up in the tavern drinking all winter long. That was what the Prime Minister said, and he was quite pleased with himself, when he came back here. These people work during the winter when they get a chance. If the pilot project disappears, these people will be penalized. I cannot understand a government that goes on stomping on people who are in dire straits. It is the only thing it can think of.

Keeping the pilot project alive is not enough. We also need a comprehensive review of the program. Some employers have come to realize this. They have started calling us on the phone and they tell us: “Employees are being penalized. I cannot hire workers anymore, and I do not blame them”. People are getting cheques as low as $65 right now. If the pilot project disappeared overnight, they would get big weekly cheques of $5.

I cannot believe we have to fight the government over this, because we have all the evidence we need. We are told to wait for the reports, to wait for the studies. Send the Minister of Human Resources Development to our region, and he will get his report.

[Supply, October 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I must say I was really wanted to speak today. I must also say that this is a sad moment, because the subject of the debate is not a happy one at home. Unemployment insurance is always a subject of sadness for us.

In the Atlantic region, as in my riding of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, many people are suffering as the result of cuts to EI made by our famous Liberal government.

As I keep saying, this is the government whose Prime Minister campaigned in my riding, making promise after promise, saying that he would scrap the GST, that he would make sure seasonal workers did not have to worry about managing to live in our regions. The people believed him. They elected him. And this is the thanks we get. We have not forgotten it.

There is a lot of sadness. As I said earlier, I got another call last night, from a woman who said “I think the employment centre has made a mistake. They did a calculation and included only the past six weeks, the money from the past six weeks, although I worked 26 weeks”. She ended up with just about nothing.

At the same time, we have Liberal members who say they are very proud of themselves, that there is a $20 billion surplus. They are proud of the way they managed the account, but they do not say a thing about the suffering there is everywhere.

More and more people are living in poverty. Mothers come to me and say “It's not just a problem for the seasonal workers. It's a community problem”. They have taken $927 million out of the New Brunswick economy since the cuts, and the government is as proud as punch of having done so.

We will not have the opportunity to see the Minister of Human Resources Development come to our region and face these problems. He does not have the gumption to do so, because he is not capable of looking the poverty and misery he has created in the face. He is not the one getting calls to his office. I am sure he is never there. In my opinion, he is not even aware of what is going on, three-quarters of the time.

I would really like to see him go to northern New Brunswick, to Kent and Albert County, to face the reality of employment insurance reform. The government has found the path to the pot of gold, and now it can boast it has paid off the deficit. Very proud of themselves they are, those Liberals. The only ones who should be proud are the workers. They are the ones who paid off the deficit. Nobody else.

We had the Prime Minister come to tell us he was going to “scrap the GST”. What was the outcome of that? An additional 15% on electricity bills, an additional 15% of workers on unemployment, an additional 15% on the cost of children's clothing, while employment insurance cheques are cut at the same time. Then people wonder why there is more violence in our communities. They blame it on the parents: broken homes, some other problem.

We know the source of the problems. They have been right in front of me for over a year. That is the problem.

I cannot imagine that members on the other side can say they are proud of the society they are creating. At home, in an area where there had never been a bank robbery, there were three in four days in the county of Kent. There was one in a store in Bouctouche last week. These things did not happen at all two years ago.

We used to have a program that had been established to share the wealth. Now we have another problem. Some children go to school hungry. Why? Their parents are poor. We do not find a poor child if his parents are not poor.

The government brags about that fact it has created many jobs. It never talks about the jobs that it has cut, the jobs that were lost, the jobs that will be lost with bank mergers. We do not hear about those things.

We do not hear about the women who were penalized. The Liberal member said a few moments ago that part time workers with three or four jobs now qualify for EI. That is good for urban areas, but it does not do much for rural communities where finding even one part time job is difficult. Those people pay EI premiums but never qualify, while the Liberals keep playing with numbers. Those people pay thousands and thousands of dollars in premiums, but they are not eligible. A distinction must be made.

And what about women who are no longer eligible for maternity benefits? Before the reform, they had to work 300 hours to be eligible. Now, they have to work 700 hours. What is good for women in that program? Nothing. Part time workers in education are also affected. Some of them no longer qualify. In the past, if they did not qualify, at least they did not have to contribute. Nowadays, they must contribute, but they do not qualify. The same goes for health care workers.

The famous dividing factor must also be discussed. They are saying: “Yes, people can qualify with 10 work weeks, as long as they have the required number of hours worked. People can qualify with six work weeks, as long as they have the required number of hours worked”. However, they forget to mention that, in their regions, the number is to be divided by 14. In other regions, it is divided by 18. And then the benefits will be calculated over 26 weeks.

I get calls from people who receive cheques for $32, $65 or $85, and I see Liberal members standing up to congratulate themselves.

I would be ashamed if I had approved a decision that caused so much misery. So many children hear their parents arguing at night about where they will find the money, the $2 they need to pay for their kid's lunch at school the next day. The members opposite never talk about this. No, because most of them are rich. They know nothing about being hungry. They need to learn what it is to be hungry.

I want to talk about Albert county. People in Albert county which is an hour's drive from Moncton need the same amount of hours as someone working in Moncton. They are down to 18 weeks for the benefit period. I have workers who will be out of employment insurance in January. Those are the workers who qualified. Many are not going to qualify at all because they need the same amount of hours as someone living in Moncton and the minister says this is good. We have proved to the minister a number of times that he is wrong. His arguments do not stand up. He needs to change it. A lot of people in Albert county are suffering because the Liberal government does not want to admit that it makes mistakes. It is making mistakes that are costing lives. How many people are committing suicide because of their difficulties?

We also have to talk about the unfair accusations of fraud because people make a mistake on the form. Even though the Canada employment centre has not paid them one penny, if they happen to not put the right amount on their form they will be charged with fraud. Someone explain that to me. This was drawn to my attention on Friday.

People opened a claim, did the waiting period, kept their claim open, reported their hours and earnings, reported an amount and the Canada employment centre did not give them an EI cheque. If there is a discrepancy, even though the government has not paid them a cent, they are accused of fraud and have to pay the difference between what they actually made and what they reported. It is armed robbery. That is attacking the unemployed, attacking honest people who could make a mistake. A lot of honest people are being accused of fraud. This has got to stop.

It is time to wake up. There is a lot of legislation out there. We have to wake up and show the Liberals that this cannot continue. There is just too much poverty.

[Supply, October 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I saw the member getting upset just a minute ago. I am a little concerned because I have to give credit where credit is due.

Definitely the Bloc has been fighting, like the NDP has been fighting, to try to bring justice to this program which has been destroyed by the Liberal government. The member has talked about how well they manage and how proud they are of what they have achieved. What they have achieved is the creation of the biggest gap ever between the rich and the poor.

They sit there and are happy about it and so proud that they managed. I can manage my finances very well at home. I can save 50% of my money if I want to starve my two kids. I can be very proud that I have money in the bank. I get upset when I see members of parliament saying that they are proud of the surplus. Yet they do not talk about the hardship they have created for the people and for the community.

This is not just a seasonal worker problem. It is a community problem created by the Liberal government that is so proud of this surplus. I do not understand it.