Angela Vautour

[Employment Insurance Act, October 5th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly a very important issue for not only me but certainly for the people of my riding of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac and all of Atlantic Canada. More than that, this is not only an Atlantic Canada issue—

[Child Poverty, September 28th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, today a report was leaked on the health of children in Canada and we have another confirmation that we have 40% more children living in poverty in this rich country.

I hear Liberals laughing at me right now while I am talking about poor children. I think that is a disgrace.

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development admit today that her government's cuts to the EI program in 1996 is a major factor in the increase of child poverty?

[Employment Insurance, September 27th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin with a reminder to the Prime Minister that seasonal workers are not for sale.

He said he wanted to have the bill fast tracked, that he was going to amend the EI program. However, families have been suffering for four years.

I have one question for the Prime Minister. Is he making fun of the intelligence of seasonal workers?

[Employment Insurance, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, seasonal workers may not find a comfortable home with either the Liberals or the Reform Alliance.

The Liberals are bragging about a $12 billion surplus, of which about half belongs to the workers and employers. EI dollars are not going to the unemployed who desperately need help.

Yesterday the member for Calgary—Nose Hill revealed her party's position on low income seasonal workers when she said “Seasonal workers already earn a comfortable income”.

I would like to present some figures. In 1996, before the Liberals slashed the EI program, 75% of seasonal workers in New Brunswick made less than $10,000 a year. Is the member saying that $10,000 a year is a comfortable income?

The Liberals were well aware of these figures before they chose to slash the EI program. How can they justify their cuts knowing that 75% of seasonal workers in just one province were already living well below the poverty line?

[Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act, September 26th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to address the amendments to Bill C-14, an act respecting an agreement with the Norway House Cree Nation for the settlement of matters arising from the flooding of land, and respecting the establishment of certain reserves in the province of Manitoba.

This bill includes two parts. The first one deals with the Norway House Cree Nation, while the second one seeks to facilitate the implementation of the land claim agreements in Manitoba, including the ones on future land claims.

Many aboriginals affected by this legislation were concerned about their aboriginal and treaty rights. The Manitoba northern flood agreement was signed in 1977 by Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro and five first nations of the province. That agreement was reached following the flooding of land used by first nations. It listed the conditions for compensating first nations affected by the flooding of their traditional land. It is not for me to say whether this agreement is considered to be a treaty, or if it will be in the future.

The first amendment seeks to protect treaty rights, should the Manitoba northern flood agreement be considered to be a treaty some day. The problem I see in supporting this amendment is that it would protect any right or claim resulting from the agreement. The key word here is the term right.

The word right is not defined in the Manitoba northern flood agreement. In this bill, this is not a problem, because there is a definition of right or claim in the Manitoba northern flood agreement. If we introduce the definition of this term, I believe that would allow some new interpretations and would broaden the scope of the bill.

Another amendment, the second one, also includes the terms right and claim. Primarily, its intent is to ensure that the Manitoba northern flood agreement continues to be the document that takes precedence in compensating the Cree of Norway House.

In this bill, the comprehensive implementation agreement would also take precedence over claims by the Norway House Cree. With the amendment, the Manitoba northern flood agreement would be amended as far as rights and claims are concerned. This therefore reinforces the protection of treaty rights and the original conditions of the Manitoba northern flood agreement.

I can understand the reasons for demanding protection of treaty rights, as in the case of the first amendment, but I do have difficulty with the idea of introducing a term that is not defined. As I have said, the term right is not defined in the Manitoba northern flood agreement.

Furthermore, the people of Norway House Cree Nation voted in a referendum to accept the terms of the master implementation agreement. While we heard from a number of concerned Norway House members about the process used in the referendum and their fears that they will lose rights afforded to them by the northern flood agreement, the fact remains that treaty rights are constitutionally protected. Discussions about the accuracy of the referendum were never completely explained, which means that one has to accept that the people chose to accept a resolution to a claim that is more than 20 years old.

It is the Norway House Cree Nation that should ultimately make decisions regarding compensation for their flooded land. They chose to accept the terms of the master implementation agreement and, with the constitutionally protected treaty rights, they should be in a position to finally realize the compensatory benefits afforded to them by the northern flood agreement.

Amendment No. 3 would add another clause to the legislation dealing with the Norway House Cree Nation and the master implementation agreement they signed in December 1997. This amendment would provide a security feature to the legislation to ensure that nothing in the act or the master implementation agreement is meant to “abrogate or derogate from the existing aboriginal rights or treaty rights of the first nation”. That is a quote from the amendment.

While this amendment has some merit since it is meant to protect aboriginal rights, these rights are already protected in the Canadian constitution. This legislation should be a positive move for the Norway House Cree Nation. Their members voted to accept the terms of the agreement and the chief has recognized the benefits of the agreement for the band members.

The PC Party supports legislation that allows first nations to become more self-reliant and financially independent. This legislation does exactly that. It will provide funds to be managed by a trust fund on behalf of the first nations. We support the legislation because of the positive advantage it provides to first nations in Manitoba but we do have reservations regarding the amendments.

[Employment Insurance, September 25th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the Reform Party that is totally heartless when it comes to seasonal workers, I would like to ask the Prime Minister when he will bring about changes to the employment insurance program so seasonal workers in our communities can feed their kids during the wintertime and all year round?

[Fisheries, September 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the minister that trying to buy off the fishermen to turn a blind eye to conservation should never have been put on the table.

The minister is saying he was not aware that it was being put on the table. What we need to know now is what is the mandate of the negotiator. Will the minister table that mandate so we know exactly what he is planning on doing?

[Fisheries, September 21st, 2000]

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

We have a very serious situation in Burnt Church. I cannot imagine that anybody here would not agree. After speaking with the RCMP this morning, there is a real chance of violence in that region. It is clear that the Minister of DFO is not going to Burnt Church and it is clear that he has failed.

I am asking on behalf of the native and non-native people living in the Miramichi area, will the Prime Minister intervene and make sure that this is settled in a humane, secure fashion?

[Fisheries, September 20th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans confirm in this House that if an agreement is reached in Burnt Church today, or tomorrow—we hope it will be as soon as possible—that agreement will provide that commercial fishing is subject to the same season and the same rules for all fishers, so as to ensure that the conservation of the lobster fishery is a priority?

[Income Tax Act, September 19th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes a tax deduction for the costs relating to the adoption of a child, up to a total of $7,000.

Despite the bill's good intentions, I believe that the problem of this country's children is far more serious. Amending the Income Tax Act by adding another clause does nothing but complicate still further a piece of legislation that is already overly complicated and does not solve the real problem. There are 2.5 million children living in poverty in Canada.

The problems that are being experienced by low income families, particularly single mothers, require examination by this government.

Living in poverty is not easy. Being unable to provide one's children with the necessities of life sometimes pushes certain people into making hard decisions.

I believe that this country needs to ensure that a favourable environment is created to acknowledge the good will of those who choose to be parents. Parenting is not always easy, especially in the year 2000, with the high cost of living, and the many challenges our young people have to deal with: drugs in the schools, finding jobs, even if their parents can manage to find enough money for their education.

Becoming a parent involves many costs. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to ensure that parents, that single mothers with children can choose. People must first be able to choose to have children, but they must also be able to decide to keep their children. It is often for economic reasons that young parents are forced to give their children up for adoption. We are very lucky to always find parents who are prepared to adopt these children, to give them a good life, to see that they live in a healthy and safe environment with all the necessities of life.

Clearly we have a duty as parliamentarians to make sure that Canadians have the necessary tools to provide what is needed.

I wonder if the hon. member for Calgary Centre really believes that the solution to the problems facing children in this country lies in tax cuts.

To listen to Canadian Alliance members, one would think that all the problems in this country are tax-related.

Having been been a single mom for a few years, my son and I certainly know, as we all know, that we need some form of tax reduction. We also know that there are many single parents out there who need a lot of different help. Far too often the reform alliance feels that the solution to every problem in Canada is to reduce taxes. I do not believe that reducing taxes solves every problem. We have to address problems in many directions.

Because of the changes to the unemployment insurance program introduced by this government in 1996, many single parents have had difficulty over the last four years because it targeted families at the lower end of the scale when it came to income and jobs. We know it has also targeted families living in communities dependent on the seasonal industry.

Cuts to the provinces' social transfers have dramatically increased the cost of post-secondary education. What is more devastating than to cut off from a teenager the chance to get an education which would permit that young person to get job and have a future? As parliamentarians we do have a responsibility to make sure that when legislation is passed in the House that we are not targeting the ones who do not have a way to defend themselves. It has happened too often in the House that policies are made, legislation is passed and we are targeting groups, especially women and children, and that is not right.

I must recognize parents who have chosen to provide good and safe homes for children across the country. Choosing to become a parent is not an easy task. Every one of us who either has children or who knows parents who have children know it is not an easy task in today's society with all the challenges that our children are facing. Sometimes both parents have to work whether they want to or not. It is a must today in order to make ends meet. If both parents are working in a region where the minimum wage is $5.50 or where there is only a seasonal industry, we can just imagine what the children are living on in winter. I believe 2.5 million children living in poverty is way to many. It is 2.5 million children too many as far as I am concerned.

We can address some of the barriers through tax reduction but we also need to see a commitment on the part of the government that will truly address the real problems of the country: too many hungry children living in this very rich country.