Angela Vautour

[Regional Development Agencies, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my Bloc colleague for the good news about his comparison of the Atlantic and Quebec.

I have to say I am not surprised to see this private members' motion today. We are finally starting to see the true colours of the Reform Party. Bit by bit through this whole parliament we are going to see Reform Party members coming up with motions and private members' bills and they will slowly try to dismantle all programs in this country. They will start, as they have shown today, by attacking the most unfortunate.

That is why we have regional development agencies. Being the critic for ACOA I have to say there is a need for these agencies but unfortunately the Reformers do not see a need. They do not see a need to help the unfortunate of this country. There has been proof today.

I have to say I am not surprised. I am alarmed because my fear of that party is coming to realization. I hope Canadians will finally see through that party. It is scary when you hear some of the things its members say.

The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency creates jobs. I am not saying that ACOA is set up perfectly because it is not. There are changes I would like to see in ACOA. I would like to see it closer to the community but it does help to create jobs.

We could try to forget that there are provinces and regions not only in the Atlantic but all across the country that are less fortunate than others. We could do like the Reform Party does and say we are going to forget about them, let us take away the financing they have, let us take away whatever prosperity this may give them. Not everybody in Atlantic Canada has big bucks to start small businesses. They need help. That is what ACOA is there for.

Again I am not saying that it is a perfect agency but I would rather see it there the way it is now than not see it at all. There is a need for it. I get calls on a daily basis from people asking how to start up a business, what is out there to help them. If we did not have agencies like this one, we would not have small businesses. The self-employed create jobs in the Atlantic provinces. There is a need for them. There is the fixed link fund. It might not have helped as much as we would have liked but it certainly helped.

One criticism about ACOA is that there is not enough follow up. There is money to help start businesses but it lets it go too fast. There is a need for follow up. There is a need to make sure that the businesses are stable and can survive. That is not there right now.

We have to look at the motion as one coming from a member of a party that wants to dismantle this program. It is a start at dismantling regional development agencies. If it could succeed—and I am pretty sure it could not—it would try it on health care, CPP and on and on. That party believes that if one is not rich then tough. It is unfortunate how it addresses the poor in Canada and tells them that it will relieve them of taxes.

I was in that bracket. I was paying taxes and I was not making a whole lot of money, but when my son was sick he could go to the hospital and it did not cost me anything. My daughter spent a week in the hospital last year and it did not cost me anything.

That is the part Reformers forget to say. They are going to reduces the taxes but they forget to say that taxpayers will have to pay for their children in hospital or have to buy insurance if they can. It is all in there.

The Reform Party has it very well laid out. Its members know what to say and they know what to try to make believe to Canadians. I am telling Canadians what the Reform Party would really do. It is trying to do it today by trying to dismantle these agencies. It is just the start of it.

That is how Reformers work. They tell Canadians that is not true, that they care about the unfortunate, the poor and the small and medium size businesses. However they would destroy them. This would destroy the possibility of creating small and medium size businesses in the Atlantic provinces. I am just showing their true colours. I believe that very much.

I probably paid more in taxes this year than I made working the year before. At least I have services. My mom and dad have pensions. They can have a half decent life. It is all there. The day we start slashing and slashing, the services will be gone. It is very important for Canadians to remember that. The motion is showing me exactly what the Reform Party wants to do.

When Reformers talk about tax breaks, do they often say a tax break only for the very poor? No, they do not say what kind of tax break they would give to the very wealthy. We do not hear them say that. I wonder why. They will never say that large corporations do not pay enough tax. Those are their buddies.

Members in the Liberal Party probably have quite a few buddies. I am sure when the Minister of Finance has supper he does not go to the soup kitchen. I am sure he goes with his bank buddies and they tell him to keep up the great work, that he is doing just great. He goes along and keeps doing what he is doing because of what all his buddies are saying. That is what happens.

Members of Parliament who have never experienced too much hardship should go to a soup kitchen for supper once in a while or should see the line-up at social services. Maybe that would give them a reality check.

When it comes to ACOA and when it comes to this motion it is disgusting.

I would also like to say a few words in French. ACOA is needed in the Atlantic regions. I have no doubt of that. We need help starting up and developing small and medium size business. This agency is there. It is not perfect, and I would certainly like to see some changes, but I would rather have it as it is than not at all. It is my duty to work toward progressive and positive changes in this agency that will help develop our regions.

As I said earlier in English, suggestions such as these calling for the abolition of agencies helping Canada's poorer regions are alarming. This is only the beginning and it reveals the real Reform Party. Its purpose is to destroy our national programs and to continue to help its friends, who are luckier than others in this country.

[Herring Fishery, May 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, there is another crisis brewing in southeastern New Brunswick.

The fishers of southeastern New Brunswick took only a few days to fill their herring quotas. This proves the resource is there. The processing plants tell us they are running at half capacity, yet the fish are there and the people need to fish.

Will the Minister of Fisheries give serious consideration to the recommendation presented to him today by the Maritime Fishermen's Union that he do something to help the families who depend on the herring fishery?

[The Late Marcel Dionne, May 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to pay tribute to the former Liberal member for Chicoutimi in the House of Commons, Marcel Dionne, who died yesterday at the age of 66 from a heart attack.

In addition to his career in politics Mr. Dionne worked in various fields. He was president of the Saguenéens de Chicoutimi of the Quebec major junior hockey league and president of the Quebec federation of potato producers. At the time of his death he was an assistant commissioner with the Canadian Grain Commission.

To the members of his family, on behalf of the New Democrats, I offer my sincere condolences.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. If the Minister of Health did not get the okay from the Minister of Finance there would be no need to sit down at the table. We know he is the one running the show in this country. There is money on the table from some provinces, at least one province. I hope if he is going there to find a settlement for the neglected sick affected by hepatitis C, I suggest he just sit at home. There is a need for money. This is not a meeting where we will sit down and look at each other. There has to be a serious discussion and a package out of this at the end.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said. If the government is expecting New Brunswick to find $200 million overnight, it will not happen. I have no doubt. I know what kind of situation we are living in. We must not forget that we have a Liberal government in New Brunswick which is doing as much damage as the federal government is doing. It is not a nice scenario. I do not see any improvement until at least the next provincial election.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

It is indeed difficult for a province like New Brunswick, which has a high rate of unemployment. If we look at my riding alone, an unemployment rate of 14% would be good, but it is more like 16%, 17% or 18%, and it keeps going up, while cuts to health care programs continue unabated.

Of course, the federal government cannot expect New Brunswick to come up with millions and millions of dollars. It is just not going to happen. That is why the responsibility must lie with the federal government. It is a federally regulated system and the federal government must assume its responsibilities and not shift the bulk of the responsibility onto the backs of the provinces.

When the federal minister sits down with all provincial health ministers, he will have to take the situation of the rich provinces and the poor provinces into consideration, because not everyone has $200 million to throw into the pot.

[Supply, May 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address this topic today.

As a new member of Parliament, I learn something new every day. Some days are very sad, when we see how the government treats people afflicted with hepatitis C.

I never thought that we would be debating for days and months simply to bring justice to people across the country who are sick. We really have to ask ourselves where this country is at. We cannot always say we are proud of our country, because so long as we have governments like this one, there will be days we are ashamed of what it does.

As a member, I am embarrassed to admit my association with the House. Canadians often do not make a distinction and lump us all together. But I think it important today to clear that up and try to explain to those listening who the people are that are prepared to make this country's citizens suffer. Obviously we are talking about the Liberals. They are the ones who have made things difficult and are refusing to recognize that there are indeed people who are very ill and that some have even died.

They refuse to accept that they have a responsibility. Yet clearly they do. That is why we are introducing another motion today to continue debate on this topic, in an attempt to obtain justice.

Often, those watching us on television wonder, during the debate, what the topic is. For their benefit, I am going to read the motion:

That this House urge the government to press for the invitation of representatives of the Hepatitis C Society of Canada to the upcoming meeting of federal, provincial and territorial Health Ministers in order to provide advice on how to address the financial needs of all those who contracted Hepatitis C from the federally regulated blood system.

I think that the important thing to remember is that it was federally regulated. This means that the government has a very great responsibility in this matter. We are facing a crisis today. It is a crisis for those who are ill, for families who have lost loved ones, for children who are suffering. We are here, in good health, debating on their behalf, but imagine the situation in which they find themselves today.

Why are we introducing this motion today? Because the initial agreement satisfied no one. The victims were not at the bargaining table to present their arguments and set the record straight. Nobody knows better than those living with hepatitis C what the illness is like. Even those of us taking part in the debate today to obtain justice for them cannot put ourselves in their shoes. We can only imagine what it is like, but it is very difficult.

As we saw this week, some provinces—Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and even Manitoba—found their heart at one point. We must remember that, at one point, neither the provinces nor the federal government had a heart. They had only wallets. They had lost their hearts and were not looking beyond their billfolds. At some point it is time to put away the wallet and see that justice is done.

That is the problem in this country at the moment. The federal government often has heart when issues concern the country's multimillionaires and the banks. In such cases, the Minister of Finance has a heart, which goes out to the major corporations. I think it is time the Minister of Finance put his two feet flat on the ground and began to think about reality and the type of country he is creating today. He is building a country we are not proud of, and it is time he stopped. It is time the people in this country—it is the voters who will do it—put a stop to current policies, whereby the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

We are in opposition and we are doing the best we can. We have not done too badly in the past month, either. If we look how far we have come in this matter, we may be proud of ourselves. However, a number of Liberals must surely be hanging their heads pretty low, especially those who were elected on principles of defending the public and working on behalf of the poor. These same people support the government one vote at a time. Then they try to convince us that they voted according to their conscience. It frightens me even more when I hear them say they voted according to their conscience.

Last week, I brought some students down with me, and when they saw what was going on last week, when the government forced all its MPs to vote the same way, they said that the one thing they had learned during the week was that there is no democracy in this country. It is sad to see 16 or 17 year olds with such an attitude.

What is even sadder is that they are right to think this way. The federal government is the main regulatory authority where blood and blood products are concerned. It is, in large part, the one at fault. The provinces are already assuming the health care costs of all victims, regardless of the date they received the tainted blood, at an estimated $80,000 each.

With all the cuts the provinces have suffered at the hands of the federal government, $3.5 billion, they are still going to give money to the victims. They have already given $300 million, or $85,000 per victim, and some provinces are already prepared to do more than that.

Our government often claims it has no money for this country's sick, elderly and poor, and that we ought to be finally understanding this, since the situation has gone on for a number of years. On the other hand, the auditor general discovered a surplus of $2.5 billion, which was kept from the hepatitis C victims. This is a sad state of affairs.

In closing, I would like to say that today, at last, the government has decided to support our motion. I trust it will support it with its heart and is not just trying to redeem itself a bit in the eyes of the MPs it forced to vote against last week's motion. I trust that they will support the motion with their heart and not for political reasons, for I see a big difference between the two.

[Petitions, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 35 people from my riding on the multilateral agreement on investment. These signatures indicate that they are very concerned with the MAI and they are concerned with the impact on the environment, employment, social programs, health care and culture.

The petitioners are asking that there be public hearings before any of this goes on further.

[Department Of Fisheries And Oceans, April 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

I just learned that three curing plants have been visited by armed Fisheries and Oceans officials. The owners of these plants were treated like criminals. What is criminal in this issue is for Fisheries and Oceans not to let herring fishers finish their fishing season last spring.

We have had it with being treated this way. We have had it with being harassed. Enough is enough. There is no work in our region. The time has come to get off our backs.

Why does this government continue to attack our coastal communities while ignoring the criminal activities of large foreign vessels? People in my region want to know what is going on.

[Supply, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first off, I must say that I am in agreement with the motion introduced by the Reform member.

I must say, though, that I am a bit confused and I would like my colleague to explain something to me Since I was elected, I have been hearing the Reform Party push the Liberals to cut and to cut some more. They are not interested in equity in health care or education. Now today we see them calling for equity for everyone.

I am completely in agreement with them that everyone affected should receive some compensation. I wonder why we cannot hear the same thing from the Reformers in the House about how there ought perhaps not to be different policies for the rich and for the poor of this country. That is something we often hear from the Reformers. They are pushing the Liberals so that we will end up with one health system for the rich and another for the poor. The same thing goes for education.

Can my colleague explain why today they have changed their tack and want everyone to be treated equitably? I wonder why they do not always support such ideas.