Angela Vautour

[Fisheries, May 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, this year the early spring resulted in a disastrous herring fishery in southeastern New Brunswick. Hundreds of fishers and plant workers are affected. These are the same people who find themselves without income year after year because of the employment insurance cuts.

It is one thing for a herring not to follow the calendar, but it is quite another thing for a minister not to realize that a season can start earlier than usual.

Can the minister explain to us why he did not listen to the fishers, and will he in future allow his department to have a flexible date to allow for an early opening of the spring herring fishery?

[Young Offenders Act, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to be recorded as being in favour of this motion.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I took the plane early this morning, and I was not aware that the minister did not know that the deportation took place in 1755. Everyone in Acadia knows that.

However this is simply more proof that a number of ministers in cabinet know nothing of us. It was the same thing with Doug Young, as my hon. colleague indicated. He did indeed get a one-way ticket, but it is unfortunate that he took advantage of people, with the help of his colleague Camille Thériault, who made himself many millions in New Brunswick. Perhaps we will resolve that on June 7 as well.

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 25th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from the Bloc Quebecois for his comments.

I want primarily to make comments, and if my colleague cares to reply, he is welcome to do so. I agree with him that our government, as I was saying also, is nevertheless fairly creative and managed legally to take money belonging to the workers and employers in the employment insurance fund. The surplus amounted to $25 billion. This money should be used to help provide training and to assist those who no longer have a job.

Today, we see that fewer than 40% of the unemployed qualify for the employment insurance program. In the regions in the Atlantic provinces, including in New Brunswick and in my riding or elsewhere, as well as in Quebec, many people are suffering terribly as the result of cuts to the employment insurance program. It is also clear that the Liberal government cares little for people who need help.

The government has discovered a fund with a surplus of $30 billion. We must admit that the Minister of Finance has the ability to make us think that we are paying for one thing and then use the money for something else.

I wonder whether my colleague agrees that, once again, this government has found the way to take $30 billion that does not belong to it but rather to workers and retired people. Does he not think that there is probably a good way to describe what the government is doing today, but which we cannot utter in the House?

[Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act, May 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague in the Conservative Party for his comments.

I want to ask my colleague how he interprets the way the finance minister has been able to go into the UI fund. The finance minister figured out that the government could go in there, and I know there are certain words we cannot use in this House but we can think about them, and find a way to use $25 billion paid by employers and employees. The government did not put a cent into the UI fund, but it found a way to actually take it and use it for other things while we know that less than 40% of the unemployed qualify for UI.

Being members from the Atlantic region, we know the impact. We know how many people right now are going without UI and without income. Minimum wage is very low in New Brunswick. Jobs are seasonal. Unfortunately, when we have programs to help in developing jobs, we often get refused for government funding because only seasonal jobs are being created. How can we try to create jobs in our region?

The government found a way to get $30 billion. That is $25 billion and $30 billion which equals $55 billion that the government has its hands on. It is a lot of money.

I wonder if the member is seeing what we are seeing, what the workers are seeing and what our brothers and sisters in the public service are seeing. This money is being taken. The government has found two pots. Let us face it. The Minister of Finance is very creative in finding ways to get money that is not the government's and using it for its own purposes.

It is also unfortunate that the President of the Treasury Board is refusing to recognize the inequality regarding pay equity. This is directly affecting the public service employees.

Does my colleague agree with me that we sometimes have to question what the government is doing?

[National Housing Act, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments following those of the parliamentary secretary. She wondered why we could not trust the government with this bill. We could provide a long list of why we cannot trust the government.

We could look at what the Prime Minister said when he came to Beauséjour to get elected in the riding that I represent, which was once the safest Liberal seat in the country. He promised seasonal workers that he would make the UI program better for them, to better reflect their needs. When he came back to Ottawa he actually said everybody was drunk in taverns collecting UI.

Then they were to scrap the GST. We all remember that. What happened was that in New Brunswick we ended up with an extra 8% on the electric bill, on the oil bill, on children's clothing, and it goes on and on. Now we have a 15% tax on everything.

Then we have the national child care program. That was also a great promise in 1993, that we would have a national child care program, and we are still waiting for it. Yet she wonders why we cannot trust the government.

How about pay equity? There were signed letters by the Prime Minister to women who have actually passed away due to illnesses since his promise to them. They kept his letter in their desks, hoping that the Prime Minister would keep his promise and give them what was rightly theirs.

The tribunal said that these women and men, federal public servants, deserved equal pay for work of equal value. We have a Liberal government that condemned the Conservative government for not wanting to recognize that. The Liberals made promise after promise to get elected and were elected, but again they did not honour the promises.

I have no problem justifying to the parliamentary secretary why we cannot trust the government. We just cannot trust it. It will say anything to get elected, and that is what it did.

Also the parliamentary secretary mentioned decent affordable housing. What is the real definition of decent affordable housing when there are 200,000 homeless people in the country? Single parents are using 50% or more of their income to pay their rent. Low income families are doing the same. Low income seniors are using 50% of their income on housing.

The budget was brought forward in February and it showed a surplus. What did the government do with the surplus? It did not put it in health care. The government pretended to put it in health care, but it really put it on the debt. It had all the chance in the world to address the homeless situation and first nations across the country that desperately need housing. Does the government really care? It comes up with a bill, but do we really have a housing act?

I look at 200,000 people with no roofs over their heads. I look at the first nations across the country living in desperate situations. I look at poor families outside reservations living in desperate situations.

In February the Liberal government had a chance to do something about these things. What happened? It actually implemented the Reform Party's position: cut tax, reduce the debt; cut tax, reduce the debt; cut tax, reduce the debt. That is what we saw and to hell with social programs. This is what is happening. Again the poorest people in the country are suffering, and that is not right.

It is clear that the bill will not improve anything. Technically we have heard everything that is wrong with the bill. I think it is important to talk about the real issues such as what is really happening in our areas.

Every day we receive phone calls from people looking for a place to live. We have to make phone calls all over the riding trying to find places for people to live in order to be able to work. If one does not have a home, how can one hold a job? That is a serious problem.

New Brunswick is paying the lowest social assistance payments in the country to its recipients. Two single moms cannot share a house or an apartment in order to try to make life better for their kids because it is not allowed. It is not allowed because it might make their life a little easier. It is sad. These people are smart enough to get together and do something that is especially good for their children. Then they could go to school with food in their stomachs and wearing proper clothing, but the provincial government says it is not allowed.

I think everything we could say on the bill has been said. It is clear it is something we cannot support. Hopefully the government will find a conscience some day.

[Canada Post, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Post Corporation Act says that Canada Post is not expected to pay dividends to the government. Instead, surplus revenues should pay for improved services and provide decent wages and benefits for postal workers. However, Canada Post will be giving $200 million to the federal government as a dividend payment.

Meanwhile, Canadians are worried about their postal services. In Sackville there are super mailboxes which freeze in the winter. In Shediac there are long line-ups. In Richibucto the post office building is for sale. More and more it seems that Canada Post's only concern is to make profits. Could it be to make deregulation or privatization easier?

The NDP strongly believes that Canada is best served by keeping Canada Post as a public service. Deregulating or removing the post office's monopoly would increase postal rates in rural areas, raise post office deficits and eliminate postal services and jobs.

Canada Post should work toward offering better service to all Canadians.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, May 4th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I was looking forward to speaking to report stage of Bill C-71. I certainly understand the situation my colleagues from the Bloc and those from Newfoundland are encountering with respect to transfers to the provinces. However we have to look at the issue in a broader way and use very understandable language.

It is very clear that poverty is increasing in the country. I do not think anyone could argue that. We have 500,000 more children living in poverty since the Liberals came to power. The Liberals are bragging that the country is doing better than ever. I certainly would not want them to start saying that we are not doing very well, because then definitely there would be a lot of people in trouble.

There is nothing in Bill C-71 to help the children living in poverty. The same children who were hungry before the last budget are still hungry today. That will not change unless the government changes its direction. Unfortunately we have an official opposition that is pushing the Liberal government to cut even further.

Earlier a Reform member referred to social programs as being a waste. I find that very unfortunate. I hope people who need social programs recognize what is being said in the House sometimes by the same parties that are trying to tell Canadians they care about what is happening to poor children.

Perhaps some in the House would like to talk about the poor bankers, but I would rather talk about poor children and the poor parents. My goal is to try to help the children and the teenagers who are living in great difficulty.

There are serious problems in this country. There are students who accumulate $40,000 in debt during four years of university. They have a mortgage on their home and have still not even found a job. Someone should talk with them and begin to give them some hope.

Since June 2, 1997, when I was elected, I have not seen much done to give hope to young people, to single parent families living on welfare or inadequate salaries. These people cannot afford day care.

If we look at what the Liberals promised in 1993, a national day care program was right up there. What became of this promise that was so important in 1993? They have had enough time to implement this program. But instead they decided to go after the surpluses.

And where did they look? In the EI fund, which belongs to employees and employers and which is there to help employees through periods of unemployment when times are tough.

The Minister of Finance is quite a creative fellow. The President of the Treasury as well is starting to take a pretty creative approach to the pension fund of federal employees. The two of them went after $25 billion in the EI fund and $30 billion in the pension fund respectively.

Questions are in order when people contribute to a pension fund and, overnight, the government can decide to lay claim to it and say that it belongs to all taxpayers. A look needs to be taken at who actually contributed to this fund.

When the government cut the EI program, the result was widespread poverty. Today the 500,000 children who are poorer than they were in 1993 have not benefited from a better economy. That is not true. It is a known fact that the ones who benefit from a better economy are the richest people in this country. The gap between rich and poor is wider than it has ever been in this country.

The decisions taken by governments have helped one group, the people who already had money, while causing suffering to many families. We see the results in our communities. We see the results of a lack of job creation. We see the lack of understanding of the situation in the Atlantic provinces, when we hear comments made here about those people not wanting to work.

The reality in our regions must be seen first hand. We live in regions where the jobs are seasonal. Last week, they were calling for 20 centimetres of snow down there, while people were going around in shorts here in Ottawa. The tourists wandering around Parliament Hill are not doing the same on the beaches of New Brunswick, at this time of year. We can still see ice on the beaches.

This must be understood: we live in a country of great diversity. This requires a strong central government with a desire to continue to help the entire country, not just the few richest provinces, which is what we are seeing today.

It is a great pity that we again had a budget that does not respond to the needs of everyone in the country, just those of a few provinces and a few groups. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Children who went hungry before the budget are still hungry, and will continue to be. One day, I hope, we will have a government with a conscience.

The Minister of Finance should visit food banks, as I did a month or two ago, and meet the families that have to rely on these food banks. We must get it out of our heads that people are just pretending that they need to go to food banks. Not too many people get up in the morning and muse about which food bank they will go to, to get their groceries.

The majority of people going to food banks need help. The Minister of Finance should have dinner in one of these places every now and then, instead of eating with his friends, the bankers. He might reconsider some of the decisions he is making.

The problem today is that too many people making decisions are associated with just one group. The Prime Minister put the Minister of Labour in charge of the homeless issue, but we have yet to see any related budget or structure. Very little action has been taken.

I am convinced the minister is prepared to do her job. However, she must be provided with the necessary tools to do it properly. I am convinced that, so far, she has not been given the resources she needs. She will not be able to do her job until she gets those resources.

I hope that, in the future, opposition parties will start looking after the interests of the poor in this country. This is difficult to do when the official opposition's goal is to lower taxes. But at what cost? Some provinces need help. Our party says that a tax reform is in order, because there are people who should not be paying taxes, while there are others who do pay taxes but should be paying more. We all recognize that, but we must also recognize that social programs are needed. We need to help those who are suffering. The $42 billion deficit has been eliminated.

Who paid off part of that deficit? It is the unemployed, the elderly and the young university graduates with debts of $40,000 or $50,000. It is these people who eliminated the $42 billion deficit. We must help them, because they are in need. Bill C-71 clearly does not meet the needs of all Canadians.

[Youth Suicide, April 26th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the cuts made and the actions taken by this government and the provincial governments across this country have all too often had a negative impact on the people. Politicians do not always recognize the problems of Canadians.

One problem they seem to have washed their hands of is the high rate of suicide among young people. Governments must fight this alarming problem. To do so, they must look at all the causes.

We must make sure resources are available in schools to help young people in distress. Budgets have been cut so much that social workers and those doing psychological testing have been cut. Also, with classes of more than 30 students, teachers cannot act as psychologists. They need support.

Furthermore, governments should make sure that there are activity centres in the community for young people.

In closing, I join with the families and students of the Mathieu-Martin, Clément-Cormier and Dr Marguerite-Michaud schools, currently dealing with this tragedy. I share their grief deeply.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, March 25th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, poverty is a recognized source of inequality and disadvantage in society. In Canada the federal government has lost or relinquished most of its capacity to support Canadian citizens and is creating a culture that puts far more value on wealth than on human values.

In the past Canada has managed to move away from discrimination based on gender or ethnic background, but today we are moving toward a system of discrimination based on wealth. On February 13, 1998, our party put forward the following motion in the House of Commons:

That this House condemns the government for promoting an economy where the gap between the super rich and ordinary Canadian families is widening, risking the future of our youth, and strongly urges the government to introduce in the coming budget measures ensuring every Canadian an opportunity to share in a new prosperity.

Figures tend to indicate that in today's economy a few are getting richer while the majority of the population is not getting a fair share of the wealth in our nation.

A recent report by the Centre for Social Justice indicates that the average income for the richest 10% of families in 1971 was $170,000, 21 times that of the poorest 10%. By 1996 Canada's richest were making 314 times the average income of the poorest.

Bill S-11 is related to a recommendation from the Canadian Human Rights Commission which calls for, among other things, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act that would outlaw discrimination against the poor.

Poverty is discriminatory enough. It prevents full participation in society and can deny adequate housing. It certainly affects educational opportunities and keeps a child in hunger. As Canadians we must not add to that litany by giving the poor no protection or recognition under our laws.

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the case of Vriend v Alberta that:

The law confers a significant benefit by providing state recognition of the legitimacy of a particular status. The denial of that recognition may have a serious detrimental effect upon the sense of self-worth and dignity of members of a group because it stigmatizes them—. Such legislation would clearly infringe on section 15(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Code because its provisions would indicate that the excluded groups were inferior and less deserving of benefits.

Poverty is still not recognized as a source of inequality in society. It is true that attitudes cannot be legislated, but attitudes can be changed and can be challenged, especially when decisions such as denying a service are based on discrimination. We will support the objective of ensuring that poverty or social condition cannot be used as a reason for discriminating in Canada.

The NDP is a party that promotes an egalitarian society. We believe in the role of the state in supporting a fair and equitable distribution of the benefits or the wealth generated. For us, society should be a humanistic one in which all members are treated equally, with respect, dignity and fairness. The law must protect a large segment of society that is being discriminated against just because it is living in poverty.

I think it is important to note that the motion before us today gives us an opportunity to speak to the issue of poverty in this country. I believe that this week the Liberal government has finally admitted that there was a great deal of poverty in Canada, given that it is considering appointing a minister responsible for the homeless.

It is interesting that the Liberal government would decide to appoint a minister for the homeless. One would need to look at why there are homeless people in this country today. There are homeless people because there is poverty. I am pretty sure that it is not the rich who are living in our streets. There are very few rich street people out there.

We need to look at why they are in the street, why there are people in my riding who have to go to the food bank, why there are children going to school without breakfast. Teachers know that when such children go home after school, there is probably no supper for them either.

It happens in the counties of Kent, Westmorland and Albert just as it happens in Toronto, British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. We can pretend it is not there, but that will not resolve the problem.

The Prime Minister has appointed the Minister of Labour as minister responsible for the homeless. We are pleased he did, but we must note that no money or information resources came with the title. The minister was given a title. What is her mandate? What resources are available? Who will be working with her?

I also asked for a parliamentary committee to be struck. We know that, if the minister is to really do her job, she will have to review and criticize the policies of her own government. When they changed the unemployment insurance program, they made people poorer. People are not poor for no reason. There are reasons.

Laws passed in this House continue to attack the poor. There has to be someone to make sure that, when legislation is introduced in this House, no group is attacked by it. It is clear that with the changes to the unemployment insurance program the poorest suffered. That is clear.

There needs to be someone to make sure it remains. I hope the minister responsible for the homeless will have the tools and the freedom to change the policies of her own party. That is where the problem starts. She will also need a committee.

If no members of the opposition work with her, how can we be sure that her appointment is not just a title to hide behind? We must make sure that the Liberal government does not find a way to go outside the House and blame everyone else if there are homeless people or poor children in our society so that it is not held responsible. We must ensure that the minister has the tools and latitude she needs to do her job.

Bill S-11 is necessary. This week, I took part in a press conference with my Bloc Quebecois and Progressive Conservative colleagues and our views on this are similar. I supported them. I think that we must sometimes put aside all partisanship and use common sense.

When I see something that can help someone in difficulty, I do it. That is what I did this week when I supported the bill introduced by my Bloc Quebecois colleague. The Progressive Conservative Party joined in as well, but the Reform Party refused. That is often the case. We are having the problems we are encountering today because the Liberal Party is promoting Reform Party policies. This is causing a serious problem.

I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak in favour of this bill. I have no problem supporting it, nor does my party. We must start to pay attention to poverty, to the discrimination that takes place when someone is prevented from opening a bank account because they are on welfare. That is discrimination.

If an individual living in poverty declares personal bankruptcy, he will file for bankruptcy. That person will be told he must have $1,500 to declare personal bankruptcy. The majority of people living in poverty who declare personal bankruptcy do not have $1,500. But the service responsible for managing personal bankruptcies has this arrangement with the government, whereby the child tax credit can be used toward paying this $1,500 fee. The government takes that money out of the pockets of the family to give it to the personal bankruptcy service.

Once again, the children are the ones who are made to suffer when their family is in dire straits.

These are but a few examples of how much injustice there is in this country. I hope all opposition parties that object to the growth of poverty in this country will work together to make the Liberal government more accountable.