Angela Vautour

[Employment Insurance, October 24th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to debate of this motion. I support it fully, and I thank my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois for introducing it.

As my colleague mentioned earlier, there are serious problems in our region. The Liberal Party member mentioned earlier the dependence of the unemployment insurance—which they want to call employment insurance—system.

I should ask a question, perhaps. When you live in a region where the economy is primarily seasonal, people depend on employment insurance in order to live and to eat. This is dependence. They have a choice: either employment insurance or meagre social welfare. Most of them are not eligible for social welfare if one member of the family earns $800 or more a month.

From what I understand, the government does not like having people depend on the employment insurance system for sustenance. In other words, it says that they should starve. As a member of Parliament, I disagree. Having something to eat is not a privilege in this country, it is a right.

When I get calls from people in my riding who receive $39 a week from employment insurance I can see there is a problem, especially when there is a surplus of nearly $12 billion in the employment insurance fund, which was paid by employers and employees.

The government says it is going to take it, and we will use the word “take” today, to pay its deficit, that it will decide to pay a debt, the deficit, on the back of the unemployed, people who have lost their job, small and medium businesses that have closed their doors. New Brunswick's economy has lost a lot of dollars because of the cuts to pay the deficit.

Many businesses today say “enough is enough”. People don't have money any more. So now more people than just the seasonal workers are suffering. There are seniors as well. If we look at the example of the man making $39 a week at home, with his 73 year-old mother looking after him. Do you think that this woman is earning enough to provide for her son?

Don't tell me that cuts don't hurt anyone; they hurt everyone. Take a good look of how much money it costs for our health care program today because of people who are stressed and end up in hospital because they cannot find a job and can no longer get employment insurance. It is easy for us, who make $64,000 and $70,000 a year to say: “No you do not get paid for three months of the year”.

Today, I am not hungry, but I have experienced hunger. I am not hungry today and I may forget what happens at home, if I like, as some people on the other side have done in creating reforms without thinking. There are children who go to school without breakfast, who will have no lunch or supper.

And yet they are saying people depend on employment insurance, that employment insurance should be eliminated because it creates dependence. I say that I was proud to depend on employment insurance when I needed it. I was unemployed until June 2, 1997. I needed employment insurance to feed my son and daughter. I am not going to turn around and tell people at home that they will lose their right. I can guarantee them today that I will fight to the last, because what the government is doing to our people is utterly inhuman.

[Customs Tariff, October 24th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a correction and a few points, because I attended the Vision for the Atlantic.

I will tell you how I attended it. It was against the will of the premier of New Brunswick. That is the type of vision which they have. The social groups were not invited. No workers were invited and the people who spoke at the conference were not representing the people of the Atlantic.

It is very important to start wondering whose vision it is for the Atlantic. The New Democrats were certainly not invited, a lot of PCs were not invited and actually we were told that they were not welcome there. Tell me what kind of consultation that was?

[Canada Health Act, October 23rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, Canada's New Democratic Party supports the concept and believes the idea could be implemented with political will but without opening up the Canada Health Act.

Health care is about much more than hospitals and doctors. That is why the NDP has been standing in the House talking about issues like jobs, poverty, education for our young people and the social safety net.

About 1.4 million children live in poverty in Canada. Over 50% of aboriginal children both on and off reserve are living in poverty. The National Forum on Health says people who have been unemployed for any significant amount of time tend to die prematurely. That is why we continue to raise in the House daily the issues of employment and employment support programs like EI.

Canada's NDP has been a long time advocate for expanding medicare. We have been advocating for a national pharmacare program to include coverage of prescription drugs under the public insurance system. Liberal cuts to federal transfers for health have led many provinces to de-list drugs and impose increased user fees. These cuts hit poor Canadians and seniors hardest. A national pharmacare program would reverse this trend.

Unfortunately the Liberal promise on pharmacare rings hollow. We have had no assurances that Liberals intend to follow through on their election rhetoric.

Canada's NDP has also advocated change in the area of home care. A national home care program would encourage innovation in the area of health care and help provinces deal with the changing roles of hospitals and doctors. The huge burden placed on women in the home, the ones who are primarily left to care for patients, would be reduced.

Canada's NDP will continue to fight for better health care. We will fight to stop the $1.2 billion cut in federal Liberal health transfers this year. We will fight for programs to relieve poverty and for jobs.

We appreciate the spirit of this motion. This House can rest assured that Canada's NDP will be there fighting for better health care for Canadians, for pharmacare and for home care.

I think it is important to take a look at what is happening in health care. Our situation in New Brunswick is very critical, and I think it is very important to talk about it, because every day New Brunswick's newspapers carry articles about our seniors in nursing homes. Because of the Liberals' cuts to the provinces, these are no place for our seniors.

My mother would not go into one of these homes, that is for sure. There are some frightening stories in New Brunswick today; there are a number of investigations taking place into health care in the province. Why? There are two reasons: health care cuts, and cuts in provincial transfer payments. In addition, our provincial Liberal government would rather put money elsewhere than in health care.

I was also very surprised at the comments by the Liberal member when he said he was concerned about health care for women. I would like to see him just as concerned about the problem of pay equity for women

[The Late Rodrigue Bourdages, October 23rd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to salute Mr. Bourdages' family. As an Acadian, it is an honour for me to pay tribute to their father's memory.

I take this moment to ask the House to remember Rodrigue Bourdages, who passed away on October 12, 1997 at the age of 73. Mr. Bourdages was born in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on October 22, 1923. He is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Adolphe Bourdages.

He studied at Brébeuf school and then became a general contractor in Montreal. As president of Bourdages Construction Ltd., vice-president of Laval Investments, director of Dicana, and vice-president of Rapidco, he excelled as a building contractor and as a manager for the Société immobilière du Québec.

Mr. Bourdages was a third and fourth degree member of the Knights of Columbus, a member of the international order of the Alhambra, and a member of the Knights of the Holy Sepulchre of Jerusalem.

He was elected to the House of Commons on March 31, 1958, under the Progressive Conservative Party banner, and he represented his constituents well during his four years of tenure, until his defeat in 1962.

Mr. Bourdages is mourned by his wife, Évelyne Arsenault, his two children Raymond and Diane, his sisters Fernande, Armande, Thérèse and Micheline, his grandchildren Sébastien, Normand, Ève-Lyne and André-Julien, and by many relatives and friends.

At this time, I would like, as an Acadian, to offer my condolences and those of my colleagues to the family and friends of Mr. Bourdages.

[Supply, October 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Miramichi is quite aware of the situation in our region where the cost of unemployment insurance has made it extremely difficult for people to survive in rural communities. On top of that the federal government, DFO, has opted out of the funding of wharfs.

Does the member for Miramichi recognize that this is a problem? Is he willing to work on making sure that our fishermen have secure decent wharfs from which to fish?

[Supply, October 23rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the amendment of continued planning. I will explain the kind of continued planning we have had, at least in my region where there are fishermen.

All connections have been cut off to the wharfs and fishermen are stuck paying for it, the same fishermen seeing cuts everywhere. Licences have been increased by 1000% which again is an attack on fishermen. Conservation does not exist when it comes to fishing. Fishermen are now speaking on lobster because the cod is gone. They are now speaking out about the conservation of lobster, but no one is listening. There are no consultations. The EI program is attacking the fishermen. If this is called continued planning, I would not want them to admit they were planning something.

How can they explain cutting off all funds to the wharfs, some of which are closing because people cannot afford them? There is only so much volunteer work that can be done. People have no money to give. How are they going to make sure that the lobster will still be there? People in Ottawa love to eat lobster, but the way our seasonal industry is being attacked they will not be there in five years.

Could the member please explain to me how they are going to make sure our fishing industry will survive all this.

[Employment Insurance, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, while the deficit is under control and there is in excess of $7.5 billion sitting in the employment insurance fund, there are still unemployed workers struggling to survive on a meagre $39 a week.

Will the minister commit today to making the necessary changes to the Employment Insurance Act to put an end to the unfair treatment of seasonal and part time workers in the Atlantic region, in Quebec and across Canada?

[Employment Insurance, October 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I received a disturbing phone call this week regarding a seasonal worker who worked his hours in a 12-week period, qualified for EI, but because of the new legislation having included a 26-week period for calculation of the claim, this man is asked to live on a $39 a week paycheque.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Does the minister recognize that there are unjust laws in the EI legislation and that it discriminates against seasonal workers and part time workers, taking away their dignity?

[Speech From The Throne, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, try to explain that to a mother who cannot feed her children or to the person who just lost his or her job. Believe me, at this point no one is worried about that.

What I am worried about—

[Speech From The Throne, September 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I guess the member is not understanding that we have a problem and that is who pays that deficit.

I said it is the unemployed. It is the sick. It is the elderly. Did any banks pay on that deficit? Did any of the very wealthy pay on that deficit? He should check with the people who cannot feed their children any more.

What the hon. member should understand is who is suffering today because of deficit reduction. We have no problem with deficit reduction, but why should everyone not pay their fair share? We have not seen that from the Liberal government.