Angela Vautour

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Bloc for his kind words.

You might say he hit the nail on the head. It is true that I do not necessarily project the image of a politician. My background certainly did not prepare me to be one, but I must say I am certainly as well qualified as any to represent the people of my riding.

Those who elected me are people who have needs, who need national programs, who need help. They count on me to see to it that programs are maintained.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague, scholarships should not be granted on the basis of excellence.

But I must add that the millennium scholarships are for the year 2000. If we admit that students have a problem today, these scholarships should be awarded right away. If a young student is having a hard time right now to finance his education or to access post-secondary education, this will not help him in any way. I have checked with young people, and they say this will be of no help whatsoever.

The reason I got scholarships back in 1978 is that I came from a poor family and I did not have any money. It is ridiculous even to think we should help students whose parents can pay for their post-secondary education. These scholarships should help reduce the gap between people in need, and people who need no help. I have to agree with my colleague's position.

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I must unfortunately say that I cannot support the Bloc Quebecois' motion. I will explain why. For us, national programs are very important and we have our reasons to care about them.

We must think about the regions that need help. People pay taxes and the federal government must be there to help them when necessary. I believe it is important to maintain transfer payments. But the money must be put back in the education system, so that young people will not, as is often the case now in our country, stop their education because they cannot afford post-secondary studies.

Young people, the lucky ones who have the means to go to university, can do so, as well as those who can borrow money, but they end up $25,000 in debt. There are graduates in my riding who owe $31,000 and $51,000. How can we expect them to succeed on the job market? You have a hard time job-wise when you are saddled with a $51,000 debt.

National programs definitely need to be maintained. One should not assume they are there. These programs must be maintained. It is unfortunate that we have a government which, in recent years, decided that post-secondary education was not very important for low income Canadians.

And the war goes on. As regards social programs, there is a two-tier system not only in education but also in the health care sector. Already, there are many medical programs and services that used to be free, but for which we must now pay.

There are waiting lists for day surgery hospital beds, which are not really used for that purpose. People who can afford to pay to remain in hospital can stay, while those who cannot must leave. Often women must stay home to take care of those who were not ready to leave the hospital. That is why national programs are there, to provide the same opportunities to all Canadians.

I am very proud to be Canadian. Coming from a relatively poor family, I must say that I wonder sometimes if the poor are considered as Canadian as the wealthy in this country. Considering the direction in which the Liberal government is going, it is very clear that the less fortunate in this country do not have equal access to social programs and are not treated as they should be.

The same thing applies to those on welfare. We have national programs and we should keep them. We have people who have no job and are unable to find one. We have a government that is not interested in creating jobs, and now it is taking away the only thing these people have left, the social programs. This must stop.

The new millennium fund outlined in the recent budget illustrates the federal government's failure to recognize the value of education and its failure to consult with student groups and the provinces to develop realistic, workable solutions to barriers in education.

Student debt has increased. Personal bankrupcies among students have increased by 700% between 1989 and 1997.

Twenty-five per cent of all bankruptcies were the result of student loans. As at the end of 1997 there were $37,000 bankrupt graduates. In the recent budget the number of bankruptcies of graduates are projected to be 216,000 students by the year 2003.

We see a lot of students who cannot repay their student loans. In my riding, I could have two full time employees just to deal with that. Students are being harrassed.

Students cannot find jobs. These people who can only find part time jobs or seasonal jobs in areas where such jobs exist are asked to make monthly payments of $200, $300 or $400, and some of them cannot find any job at all. They are getting telephone calls from financial institutions that want their money. These institutions show no mercy. And students are scared of personal bankrupcies.

We often hear people say that young people abuse the system, that they go to university and then declare personal bankruptcy. In any program, there will always be people who abuse. That has always been my position. But nobody should believe that most students who graduate intend to declare bankruptcy.

Young people come to my office. They may not be so young any more, because they have graduated five, six or seven years ago, and still do not have a job. The last thing you can tell them is that there are no jobs, that they must pay $400 a month, that there is no money coming in and that it is their option. They do not have any choice, really.

Instead of providing real assistance to reduce student debt and increase accessibility, the budget actually included measures to make things harder for students in debt. The Liberals have now extended the period for which student loans survive bankruptcy from two years to ten years. The budget included measures to deal with students with severe credit abuse.

We must ask who is going to benefit from this.

Two years after the Liberals announced their youth employment strategy, 48,000 fewer young people are working.

The youth unemployment rate stands at 16.5%. Tuition has gone up 41% since 1992.

When I graduated from college in 1980, my debt load was less than $3,000. I was able to pay it off and I even found a job. Right now, dome students end up with huge debt loads, no future, and no job in sight.

We should take a look at what is going on in education. A company in the Halifax area is paying a headhunter to find skilled workers, because it cannot find people with the proper training. This is a real problem, and we should be realist about it. There is no strategy.

Sometimes, when I meet with small business people, I ask them: “When you are looking to hire, is there some communication between departments to make sure that if job opportunities exist and if jobs are created locally, there will be properly trained people to take up these jobs?”

With millions of unemployed Canadians, how can it be that 20,000 vacant positions cannot be filled? Somebody is taking us for a ride. I think we should review the situation, and see what is going on.

Some people are not doing their job and I do not think it is the members on this side of the House. It may be the people who are running the country and not making job creation their number one priority.

Since unemployment insurance was reformed, 730,000 people were forced to go on welfare. We were told the reform was necessary, that the system was no longer meeting the needs of our society. I can tell the members that the 730,000 people who are now receiving welfare benefits because of this reform used to enjoy a program that did meet their needs. Nowadays, they have to do without such a program.

It is often said that the people who are on welfare are caught in a vicious circle and can no longer get back to the labour market. Just imagine the monster we have created.

What would the NDP do about this? I am sharing my time with my colleague, so I will leave it at that.

[Employment, March 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development Canada.

Since the southern part of Albert County and the Salisbury—Petitcodiac area are rural areas, and are outside the Moncton Census Agglomeration, since the minister has all the statistics indicating that these areas have a very high unemployment rate, and since the federal government excluded the parish of Dorchester in 1994, in between the five year review, will the minister immediately exclude the southern part of Albert County and the Salisbury—Petitcodiac area from the urban employment insurance zone for New Brunswick?

[Trans-Canada Highway, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I ask this question on behalf of the constituents of my riding, especially the people of River Glade, Salisbury and Petitcodiac.

Will the Minister of Transport immediately forbid the New Brunswick government from charging tolls on the section of the Trans-Canada Highway between Moncton and River Glade, a section of highway that has already been constructed and paid for by Canadians and New Brunswick taxpayers?

[Ice Storm 1998, February 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House tonight with great respect to express a few opinions on the ice storm that affected eastern Ontario, western Quebec and the southern part of my province, New Brunswick.

I would also like to use this occasion to relate several stories of the bravery shown during the recovery efforts. I would also like to offer my best wishes to the victims and to civilians and the military for their efforts.

The situation following the ice storm was the result of a huge disaster that touched the hearts of Canadians from coast to coast. The storm claimed its thousands of victims indiscriminately. No one was spared, not even His Excellency the Governor General.

A number of my staff were affected by this natural disaster as were a number of my friends. Let me tell you what happened to a member of my staff, who was visiting Hull. He was sitting in the living room with a friend when suddenly a tree crashed through the living room window destroying his car at the same time. So people who were not even really involved in the situation became victims too. A nightmare come true.

Let us hear of the heart breaking story of a dairy farmer in Prescott-Russell who awoke to find his main barn in the midst of collapse, not able to withstand the weight of the ice on the roof. Animals were trapped inside.

He and his family had slept in front of the wood stove for the fifth night. They awoke to hear a bomb like noise from behind the house. Then they heard desperate cries from their herd. Cows were dying as lungs were punctured, bones broken and flesh severed. His livelihood was shattered. All thoughts of prosperity were ruined.

That man loved his animals. He had suffered for five straight nights and had to go back into the house, grab his shotgun and put down 14 mature dairy cows, 9 of which were due to have calves within the next four months. This caused even more inner turmoil. The farmer had to leave the carcasses there to freeze.

He awaited the military to assist in the dismantling of his fallen barn and the disposal of the livestock that had perished. With the arrival of the military his worries were far from over. He then had to find another farmer who, like him, was both mentally and physically exhausted, had no electricity and little manpower, to take in the surviving animals so they could be milked and cared for to the best of the two men's ability.

He then contacted his insurance company, only to find that the damage was not covered. He lost hope and even considered suicide. My heart goes out to those people today.

I would also like to take time to thank the media—television, radio and the newspapers—which really told the story to those of us outside the crisis. We had an opportunity to see what was happening, and people outside the provinces affected had an opportunity to help those in despair. In this case, the media served as a very effective tool. They certainly did their job, and I think it important to recognize that.

Some victims' problems did not end with the storm and the return of electricity. Some people went back to work after the states of emergency were over to find themselves without a job.

They did not lose their jobs just because small businesses closed for lack of sales, but because they did not turn up for work, even though a state of emergency had been declared. These people, who were trying to survive in intolerable conditions, were unjustly forced onto unemployment insurance, adding to their pain and suffering.

We often watch television and see the results of tropical storms in the United States, without realizing that the same sorts of disasters can happen in Canada.

Human beings were not the only victims of this disaster. We saw parks destroyed, and wildlife dead because grasses and foliage were completely ice-encrusted. These were the silent victims.

Let us now talk about the unsung heroes who worked tirelessly in order to give a minimum standard of life to those affected by this storm. In Orleans and Kanata we had cadet squadrons who assisted and boy scouts assisted in Nepean and Verdun. Many, many workers ensured that shelters and emergency services were upheld. There were the relentless efforts of several power companies from across North America, including NB Power which still has employees in the field to restore power.

I would also like to thank the workers of New Brunswick Power for their efforts. Members of my own family are still in Quebec today trying to restore things to normal.

Let us not forget to give credit where a lot of credit is due. First in the Saguenay and Winnipeg floods the Canadian forces worked relentlessly as well. Now their duty was required in eastern Ontario, western Quebec and southern New Brunswick. Thank you, thank you. God bless you for your commendable work. You deserve to be proud and we deserve to be proud also.

It is very important to realize that the Canadian forces were there. As my leader mentioned, with all the downsizing it is very important to realize that there is a need for government services in this country. All the national disasters that we have seen are certainly proof of it.

We also have to look at the solidarity.

There was a great deal of solidarity. Everyone in the country was very concerned by what was going on. We saw the efforts made and people working together. They accomplished much and deserve recognition.

This also shows that, even in communities less fortunate than others in the country, people got going and did their share to help regions affected by the storm.

It is hard to believe that the cause of so much trouble used to be a way of life. We are so dependent on technology that we can no longer even survive without electricity.

I think we have to tell ourselves that, in another era, our parents and grandparents were able to live without electricity. Today, without electricity, everything grinds to a halt. Technology is certainly one of the causes of this disaster.

Once again, I want to say thank you to all those who helped. Often, misfortune brings people together, and that is what we saw. We saw that everyone banded together. They worked together. There were three provinces in critical shape and I again wish to congratulate everyone and wish all the victims the best of luck.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will explain today why I am opposed to Bill C-28.

This bill is an insult to the Canadian people. It consists of nothing but rhetoric and serves only as a band-aid solution for the mess that the Liberal government has created in this country. It is so complex that even Canada's most respected taxation experts have difficulty in understanding what it is the government is trying to do. How insulting to Canadians.

This bill allocates $1.5 billion extra to the Canada health and social transfer. The CHST goes from $11 billion to $12.5 billion when in fact since September 1993 the Liberals have done nothing but cut. There is a lot more needed in order to restore funding to post-1993 levels.

What the Liberals have actually done, if I look at the rural riding which I represent, they have created a mess. The unemployment rate is extremely high and there have been no job creation targets. We have hard working farmers who put in long hours to make ends meet and fishing communities that once thrived off their traditional trade. We also have a forestry industry in this riding. Nothing has been created to help these regions. My riding is full of tiny communities that are homes to many small businesses. All of the cuts over the past several years have directly affected mostly the rural communities.

Liberals seem to think this is a gift. They are trying to portray themselves as the saviours of all Canadians when in actuality they are the bandits who took the money out of the hands of the people who needed it the most. This little increase in spending proposed by the Liberals will do little to offset the hardship faced each and every day by the people in my riding.

I call upon the government to increase funding in health care and education, to put an end to poverty, to reinvest in social programs and to carry through with the recommendations regarding pay equity and the seasonal workers exemption.

What about the gentleman in St-Louis-de-Kent who had to undergo a second triple bypass surgery because he could not afford his medicine? What was the cost to keep that person four weeks in hospital? What about the two students who are reported to have student debts of $32,000 and $51,000? How can the Liberals be proud of that? I am ashamed and so should they be. That is not what Canada is all about. How will Bill C-28 help out those individuals?

The federal government has been preoccupied with economic development in foreign countries and with bailing out southeast Asian markets with billions of Canadian tax dollars. Yet the Liberals continue to neglect their own people, the very same people who sent them a very clear message in June 1997 in case they have forgotten. I am living proof.

What about economic development in Atlantic Canada? People are not looking for handouts from the federal government. They are looking for jobs, real jobs with results in real paycheques so the people of Atlantic Canada can live real lives.

Let me say a few words about the reality in Atlantic Canada. There were the cuts to employment insurance. Now we have people who no longer qualify for employment insurance benefits. Only 37% of the unemployed are eligible. Was the program really designed to help the unemployed? I think not. Job creation is a major challenge and we must start setting goals in this area.

The small and medium size businesses in our communities are in trouble. That is the reality.

Creating opportunities for youth and preventing the brain drain that is on the rise in Atlantic Canada. Sixteen thousand people left Newfoundland in 1996. Let us think about it. I do not think we can all move to the western part of the country.

It is also important to remember what the Reform Party wants in terms of taxation. Reformers talk about how low income families will pay less tax. It is very important for the low income family to realize that, God forbid, if we did have a Reform government not only would the low income family maybe pay a little bit of tax but it would also pay for its children's primary education and for health care.

Reformers do not talk about the tax breaks they would be giving to their wealthy friends. Under a Reform government you would not have a pension unless you were very wealthy. If you could not work enough to save in the form of RRSPs, you would not have a pension. It is very important to remember that.

Atlantic Canadians are very hard workers. They are not lazy.

My constituents are not lazy. They are proud people who work very hard. However, in recent years, the Liberals have only taken advantage of them, and this is not fair.

Until this government makes jobs its number one priority and tackles the crisis in Atlantic Canada, the federal government will not get my vote. I would not be representing my people if I supported this bill.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite seems to know what is happening with the parks. He says that rural communities are important and that the budget should take them into account. I agree totally. My riding is highly rural.

I am nevertheless concerned and wonder about my Liberal colleague's opinion. Does he agree with the decisions to date to privatize our national parks, which bring us to ASD, which cut salaries and which complicate life even further? Often national parks are in rural settings, and the decisions made by this government department simply compound the economic problems of our communities. Could he explain to me his thoughts on his government's approach to parks?

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, my last comment the hon. member could reply to is that we are in a festive season. Most of us are going to have a very nice Christmas. I think we have to consider that there are a lot of poor families in this country today. We cannot say we are leaving this House very pleased because there are still too many children who will not have that gift under the Christmas tree and we have to say that this government is responsible for some of that.

[Committees Of The House, December 11th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member across: With the cuts to the provinces and presumably the budget that will be coming up that is not going to have a whole lot in health care, I would like the member to explain to me how much—I am going to give him some calculations.

There is a gentleman in my riding who had a triple bypass about a year ago. He was sent home with medication and because his wife was making $6.25 an hour, he could not get the welfare card. This gentleman could not afford his medication and about two months ago he ended up back in the hospital and had a triple bypass and spent 45 days in the hospital.

Can the member explain to me how the Minister of Finance calculates the cost of having a person in the hospital for 45 days when the doctor said if this person could have had his medication, he would never have had a second triple bypass.