Angela Vautour

[Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation And Safety Board Act, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the safety board act was originally passed by the Mulroney government in 1989. It brought a number of different federal bodies responsible for transportation safety under the same roof.

The NDP opposed the original act for three reasons. First, a newly created safety board was underfunded and underequipped to carry out its broad mandate to investigate all air marine, rail and pipeline accidents.

Second, the act allows ministers and interested private companies to review drafts of the board's reports and submit comments. This unduly influences the board's final reports and compromises the board's independence.

Third, the original act did not adequately protect the privacy of workers who gave testimony to the board. Without privacy workers were at risk of retribution if their testimony was damaging to their employers.

Bill S-2 is an act to amend the original Safety Board Act. Most of the changes are of technical nature to clarify language and adapt the act for technological advances. We support these aspects of the bill. There are some new provisions in the bill to extend privacy protections to people who give testimony to the safety board. We support this because it addresses one of the three reasons the NDP opposed the Safety Board Act in 1989. However, despite these positive changes we still oppose Bill S-2 because it makes a bad act even worse.

The safety board is still underfunded. Across the country there were over 2,000 air marine, train and pipeline accidents last year. Yet the safety board only employs 135 people to investigate these occurrences. Even though many of these accidents do not require in-depth investigation, the board nevertheless has a massive backlog. The backlog is so bad that the board has had to start rushing its investigations to catch up. This is a threat to public safety. The board requires more funding so it can hire more investigators to properly safeguard the health and safety of Canadians.

Bill S-2 would allow the government to turn some of the safety board appointments from full time into part time positions. This would leave the board with even fewer working hours. The dedicated public servants of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada are coping as best they can. The Liberals owe it to Canadians to give these public servants the resources they need to do their important work.

By far the worst aspect of Bill S-2 is that it puts a shroud of secrecy over the process by which private companies are allowed to influence the safety board. It is bad enough that they are allowed to review draft copies of the board's reports and make submissions.

Bill S-2 would make these submissions secret. If the private submissions of the safety board were not unduly influencing the board there would be no reason to hide them from the Canadian people. This process is elitist and anti-democratic. The Canadian people depend on the safety board for their health and safety when travelling. They have a right to know what these private companies are saying to the safety board.

The entire process of Bill S-2 has shown how out of touch the Liberals are with the Canadian public. First they introduced the bill in the Senate, a patronage ridden and anti-democratic institution that the Canadian people have no confidence in. The bill makes a bad piece of legislation even worse by putting a shroud of secrecy over the safety board and thereby compromising its independence.

The provisions of the bill to hide private sector submissions to the safety board are scandalous. The very fact that they have this opportunity to influence the board is a farce. The Liberals should have used this opportunity to remove this ridiculous provision from the act. Instead they are trying to hide it from the Canadian people.

Canadians rely on the transportation safety board to make sure that the rails, skies, waterways and pipelines of the country are safe. Transportation safety is vitally important to the movement of goods and passengers across the country. People need to be sure that the board is doing its job effectively if they are to have confidence in travelling or doing business in Canada. Thus the Liberals owe it to Canadians to make the safety board transparent and accountable.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are happy with the money we spend on justice when we are spending it the right way. Spending it only once a crime has been committed is not spending it the right way. It is not by taking funds away that we will fix it. It is not by privatizing the institutions as I know the Reform Party wants to do that we will fix it.

What we need is prevention. We need to give the dollars necessary to make sure we have the resources available when someone is in need, when we think someone needs counselling and there is a need for a teacher to say “I believe this child is having problems”. We need counsellors in the schools and places for the kids to go in the evening to play a game or something where it is healthy, where there are no cigarettes or alcohol.

That is all part of crime prevention. How many communities do not have a community centre and if they do have one cannot afford to pay a co-ordinator for the centre? Those are important factors in our daily lives and our children's daily lives. It is important they have a healthy place to go to instead of just hanging around a nice place that may not be nice to hang around.

I believe the Canadian public will not mind that its tax dollars being spent like that because they are being spent in the right way.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Liberal colleague. When one has experienced difficulties oneself, one understands.

As I said, I have a 12-year-old son who went through some difficult times and he had access to resources. My son will do well in life, I have no doubt, because he had access to resources, as did I. That is the key to success. That is why this deserves our attention.

I thank the member for his comments.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

How interesting, we get a reaction once in a while. They appear to feel threatened, and they have every reason to.

I welcome this opportunity today to speak on justice. There are problems in this respect. We often disagree with the Reform Party, which claims that this country's judicial system is a mess. This seems to be a very serious problem out west, where the Reform Party got many members elected. I cannot help but wonder if there is connection there.

In Atlantic Canada, we know that the top priority, especially in New Brunswick, is job creation.

There are certainly serious problems with justice. As a woman, I must also point out that women may have particular grounds for concern about justice. Many women are involved in violent situations and our system does not respond properly to their needs.

I speak about women because of my own experiences. But men have the same experiences sometimes, and children often do. I shall speak mainly of women, however, because we know that there is a serious problem of violence against women, whether physical, mental or sexual.

What is sad is that the process a woman has to go through to try to get the abuser stopped is a very long one and one that can cost her her life.

For instance, a woman takes her partner before a judge and there it is acknowledged that violence took place, that he stabbed or shot her, if she is still around to testify. Sometimes it is a matter of threats. If threats are involved, the judge issues a a restraining order. This is just a piece of paper. The judge signs it, and hands it over, saying “Don't try to kill her next week”.

There is a problem here. There should be a system in place for when a woman is in acknowledged danger, a process of counselling for these individuals. Just handing over a piece of paper saying “Don't try to kill her next week” does not solve the problem. The person who wants to do harm to this woman feels justified in doing so. This must be acknowledged and efforts must be made to determine why he thinks that way and convince him that he is not justified.

There is no justification for attacking someone. There is no justification for raping someone.

When judges have these people before them, there ought to be laws forcing them into therapy. As things stand now, once they leave the courthouse, there is no follow up.

That is what happened about two years ago in Toronto, and there have certainly been other incidents since then. Every week, we hear stories on the news about domestic violence resulting in death. Often, children are involved and are also victims. We must work and make resources available to try to stop this vicious cycle. It is a cycle that is costing people their lives, a cycle in which children learn from what they see, and our institutions end up full of criminals, and people wonder why.

I must say that I was pleased to learn that our solicitor general had announced funding for prevention. That is a start. I must congratulate him. We will see how the $32 million is used, because there are serious problems. And throwing everyone into jail will not solve the problem. Locking them up is not the answer. The majority of inmates in our institutions will eventually be released and an effort must be made to see that these people are better and not worse when they get out.

The solution to the problem is prevention with our young people and assistance to families that need it. That is how we will lower the crime rate in this country. We must make sure that the government's decisions do not make the problem worse. I am not prepared to say that the increase in the poverty rate will help, because when people are poor and have nothing to eat, they will perhaps rob the corner store. They lack the necessary resources and perhaps did not have the access they should have had to post-secondary education. All this adds to crime in this country.

It is a crime there is poverty in this country. There should be none. So long as we do not try to eliminate poverty here, we will not be dealing with prevention. First we need good, healthy people. We need people who are comfortable with themselves to make good choices.

To return to the judges, they too need education. I was reading in the paper this morning or yesterday about a man who may have raped his partner because he did not understand that no meant no. He thought she did not mean it, because he had already had sexual relations with her. He was found not guilty, because he did not know the difference. I did not hear the case, I have reported what I read, but it is food for thought. Even if we said yes yesterday, it does not mean we will say yes tomorrow. No is no, yesterday, today or tomorrow. We cannot have judges in this country who think it is all right for the accused to think the other person said yes.

For sure there are big problems in rural communities, where the level of unemployment is even higher. The solicitor general announced the appointment of 1,000 more prison guards in the country. We could call that positive right off, but we might ask ourselves why. No doubt the guards already on the job in institutions are happy to have help, because with the cuts in this area, help will certainly improve things. Poverty is on the rise in this country, the number of prison guards is on the rise. Is anyone looking at the whole picture? This worries me, because I see many decisions being taken.

If I look in my riding, the family crisis resource centre in Shediac is working very hard to eliminate family violence and family crime in general. They are all volunteers who work very hard. These centres are well organized, offer good service and help people in trouble. They will find sources of assistance for people. Money is not pouring into these organizations and yet, they should have more assistance.

Many volunteers get involved in putting together a half-way house, a family crisis centre or a crime prevention centre, but it takes assistance and money. Yet the will is there. There are many volunteers raising money here and there. Where I come from, people may not have a lot of money, but they give generously. They deserve to be congratulated. But the government must not rely on these resources alone.

I think it is too bad that there are such capable people, willing to do something, very dedicated to the cause, who are always scrambling for money. There are many of them. The riding of Kent apparently needs a half-way house. All ridings need them. There is a need for a very safe place where people can go. The vicious cycles must be stopped. This is only possible through prevention and resources.

I needed a half-way house a number of years ago. There was one in my area in those days. I was able to stay there for three weeks. I was able to get therapy. My son was well treated because the resources were available. Had they not been, I would probably not be here today, because I would not have been able to get out of the situation I was in, without the necessary help.

So, when I speak of family violence, I know what I am talking about, believe me. I know how important it is for these women to get help free of charge, because not everybody has money set aside in case they have to get out of the house. Services have to be there for these people.

They can be teenagers too. There are lots of young people who turn up every Tuesday. It is nearly always the same ones we see in court. But they are salvageable. Priority must be given to this, because no child is born bad. Society makes them bad, the society we as a government create.

If we create a society, an environment that is not good for our youth, we must accept the responsibility and go back in time to see what we did that had a bad outcome. This must be dealt with, or we will create a world that will not be a nice one.

That is a pity, in my opinion, because often, the resources are not available. I have often spoken to people in schools, to teachers and principals. They say “We have loads of kids who need help, but no resources”. These are young people that can be helped.

It is very rare for a 6, 7 or 8 year old to have decided to be bad for life. There are reasons, and often we need to really get inside these children to find out where the problem lies. Having a part-time counsellor in a school with 500 students is not the way to find out the child's problems. Not in the least. There must be people in the schools who have the time and the expertise to work with these young people and their parents.

The governments of this country will one day have to establish the priority. Is it to ensure that major corporations continue to make profits? Is it to believe things are going well because the economy has improved, while neglecting social programs? Poverty and stress are increasing. Think of the stress with the cutting of 45,000 federal jobs.

Not only are the poor affected, so is the middle class. There is violence in the middle class. There is violence everywhere. Family violence is not limited to the poor. Violence can be found at all levels.

It is the same with young offenders. They do not come just from poor families. They come from all walks of life. Work needs to be done with them. Until it is, we are missing the boat and by a long shot.

I would also like to talk about registration of firearms. Our constituents are wondering about this too. There is a need to control firearms. But we should not forget that people who kill their partners do not always use guns. Controlling firearms will not resolve all the problems in the world. It will worsen things in certain situations.

In a rural riding, no price is set for registering firearms. It keeps going up and up. In the regions, cuts continue to be made. That means that hunters have a problem. Things are out of balance. It is a problem for the people in our ridings.

I do not want to put all my eggs in one basket and say that everyone is safe in the country because the Liberals passed a bill on registering firearms. That is not true. There are a lot of disturbing factors there. Responsibilities must be assumed.

It is very important that we look at the justice system, at what works and at what does not work. It can put someone in jail. If people commit crimes that is their punishment, but have to look at why they are there and what brought them to that. What is the percentage of people in jail today who had a terrible past, who never worked out their past? It is a very large majority. If we had caught on to that before they committed crimes we would not be paying $75,000 or $85,000 a year for one person in jail. It is a lot of money.

That is why we have to look at prevention, not only prevention once they are 16. We have to look at the whole picture: the family environment and the policies of governments that perhaps make it more difficult, and many policies make it very difficult.

We have to make prevention a top priority and provide funds for it. It should begin in the the schools starting at kindergarten. All kinds of children may be physically abused or sexually abused. It does not only start at the age of 10 years. We need resources available for them if we want to make sure they become a benefit to the society. Until we do that I have no doubt that crime will increase.

[Supply, June 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, speaking on justice, the member on the government side was asking what the definition of justice is. My first reaction was getting rid of the Liberal government. We are working on that.

[Business Of The House, June 9th, 1998]

On the back of the unemployed and the poor.

[Parks Canada Act, May 28th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I have to say for once I am on the same side as the government. I was part of that debate when the amendment was put forward regarding the parks.

Unfortunately, this really gives another opportunity to the Reform Party members to try to gain some political points. What they are coming out with and what that amendment is, is really not what it is.

I also sit on the official languages committee. We had the official languages commissioner before us this week. We checked with him what we had passed.

What it is really is where there is bilingual status for workers, if God forbid there was contracting out, it would stay the same. It is the same thing in an anglophone region where the jobs are anglophone. Again God forbid if the government contracted out, it would stay anglophone. It would stay francophone if it was a position in Quebec. It is not changing that. It is making sure that the anglophone regions will keep their anglophone jobs. That is what it means. It means the same thing for the francophone and bilingual positions.

Unfortunately the Reform Party members have decided to have another field day like they did with the flag. They are trying to gain points with it. It is unfortunate that Reformers do that but they do. Today it is on language. I wish they would put as much effort into the unity of this country as they do in trying to divide it which is what they do on a daily basis.

I certainly do not support the motion. I know that we in committee did not pass anything that will complicate the lives of anglophones or francophones. We simply made sure that the official language legislation would continue to apply. That is all we did. We can come up with other things if we like, but I personally have better things to do than to try to compound the country's problems. We have enough problems already, we do not want to add to them.

I reiterate that the purpose of the amendments proposed by the government in committee is not to complicate the lives of anglophone, francophone or bilingual Canadians.

[Parks Canada Act, May 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today on these motions.

As I have indicated on several occasions already, I am not a stranger to the parks issue. My first job was with Parks Canada. I was also working for Parks Canada in 1997 and had to quit after the election.

I am in a good position to talk about entrance fees. My job at the Kouchibouguac National Park was at the park entrance. I was the person who collected the fees from both tourists and locals who came to visit the park. These people used to live in the park.

We must look back at what was said to park residents who were expropriated to convince them to leave. We know it was not the money. My father was offered $6,600 to leave his 50 or so acres of land in Kouchibouguac park. Money clearly was not what would make people leave. We were told that it would create jobs, well paid jobs, protect this beautiful wilderness, this great land on which we lived, to ensure it would still be there hundreds of years from now for future generations to enjoy.

There are children today whose parents were expropriated from national parks across this country, including Kouchibouguac, from which I was expropriated. Those children have no chance to go to the beautiful beaches they were promised in 1969, nor to visit the historic sites, or to use the hiking and biking paths.

Today it costs a fortune to get into a park. One must wonder for whom the parks were created. The reason to have a park is to preserve and conserve nature. It must be realized also, however, that many national parks have been created in areas of very high unemployment. People were promised good jobs, and now we see the work being contracted out and people being paid less so they are forced to leave and give up their jobs.

When these people come to visit the parks, moreover, they have to turn around and go home. I have seen people doing just that when I worked at the entrance. Sometimes I paid their entrance fees out of my own pocket because I saw that there were little kids who were not going to be able to use the beach because their parents did not have enough money. I am not making this up—that is what I saw between 1981 and 1996, and the fees keep going up.

I must say as well that our parks are not as well maintained as they used to be, because the desire seems to be to make parks into industries, to make them revenue generated. Conservation is no longer the priority, making money is, because the government is cutting the funding allocated to the parks. Nature and conservation are therefore suffering.

We must step back and look at what is going on. Having an agency is not a bad idea, but what lies behind the idea of an agency is dangerous. Why are jobs guaranteed for only two years? The work has to be done, whether it is an agency or a department that is in charge. There is no reason to make our employees feel insecure.

The work has to be done. The park entry fees must not be raised any further and thought should be given to special fees for local residents. People expropriated to make room for the parks can no longer afford to go there. Others who were not expropriated when the park was created still live in the community and they have the same problem.

Tourism is all very well, it helps the economy, and I cannot dispute that. Hundreds of thousands of people come to visit our parks. This helps the economy and we want it to continue, but we must also look at the reality. Who has access to parks these days? As with just about any other government policy, the wealthy are the ones who continue to have access to services, whether we are talking about health care, education or national parks. For those who have money, things are just fine. Everything is there for them. But for people who have less money, it is harder to have access to health care, education, services for the elderly and parks.

I definitely support a motion that would look at the real situation in the villages located close to national parks. It is important that local people have access to the parks, and one of the agency's priorities should be to be fair to those who live close to the parks and those who lost their land to these parks. We must give back to these people the access that they enjoyed before. The problem is one of lost access. We must give to the communities that live close to national parks the access they used to enjoy.

[Supply, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if my colleague from the government could confirm exactly what she said about prevention being the best way and not throwing everybody in jail without looking at why they are there.

Could the member please give me her thoughts on the kind of system we would have if the Reform Party was the government today? What would Reformers be putting toward prevention if they are talking about tax cuts? And yes we know there are some people in this country whose taxes are too high and some large companies that do not pay enough. Could the member please explain to the House what kind of system we would have?

We know that with the cuts to the social programs now, there is no more room to cut. We know that with the Reform Party there would be no real social programs. Could she please explain to us what kind of crime prevention program we would have in this country with the Reform Party governing this country?

[Petitions, May 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by some 3,200 people concerned about cruelty to animals.

These people want the government to impose greater penalties and to set up information programs for judges so they will understand exactly what the problem of cruelty to animals entails.