Audrey McLaughlin

[Yukon, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, after 21 years of negotiations, the Yukon land claim and self-government legislation is now completed. This historic piece of legislation, the product of successive governments, including the current Liberal government and the vision of the Yukon First Nations is a tangible example of true representative democracy.

The Council for Yukon Indians, the Yukon Chamber of Mines, the Yukon Chamber of Commerce, all parties in the Yukon legislature, l'Association franco-yukonnaise, the Yukon Federation of Labour and many other non-governmental organizations support this legislation.

Clearly, the will of the Yukon people has spoken and that will says that self-government and land claims can work in the Yukon. Self-government is the key to the Yukon's future self-sufficiency, as is land claims. That is something all Yukoners can work toward in the spirit of co-operation, goodwill and mutual respect.

I call on all parties in this House to support the will of the Yukon people and to support the Yukon land claims and self-government legislation.

[Witness Protection Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on April 21 I raised a question with the Minister for International Trade specific to the attack on Canadian wheat farmers, including such extreme attacks by certain people in the U.S. talking about minuteman missiles coming over to Canada.

At that time with the minister I raised the issue in general of Canada's trade policy, in particular this government's trade policy, and what it meant for Canadians specifically to the issue of wheat farmers, particularly durum wheat which is an ongoing dispute which has not been resolved with the United States by this government.

We learned on May 24 that as part of an attempt to resolve this dispute the minister simply confirmed that there was a Canadian proposal to resolve the farm trade dispute and through that Ottawa would eliminate a rail transportation subsidy on grain shipped through Thunder Bay, clearly affecting in a detrimental way the shipping industry in Thunder Bay. The rerouting seems to me not to be an answer to the problem of this trade dispute but the creation of yet another problem for Canadians in another industry.

When I first raised this question with the minister I raised the issue as well of NAFTA. He reminded me that the wheat dispute did not come under NAFTA but under GATT and of course I was very well aware of that.

However I am concerned that even since April 21 we have seen a deterioration in our trade relations with the United States. The minister has made a number of statements that do make the connection between these disputes that we have had and the NAFTA agreement which was proclaimed by the government on January 1, 1994.

Prior to January 1, prior to the election of 1993, the often quoted Liberal red book with regard to trade relations stated: "The Canada-United States free trade agreement and the North American free trade agreement are flawed. A Liberal government will renegotiate them".

The government implemented NAFTA on January 1 and is now backtracking. For example, the minister on May 25 stated in an article in the Toronto Star : ``In the harshest remarks by a Canadian minister in recent years, the minister yesterday accused President Bill Clinton's administration of increasingly arbitrary use of U.S. trade law to thwart Canadian exports in wheat, lumber and other commodities and of kowtowing to regional interest''.

The article goes on to say that the minister stopped short of talking about abrogating the North American free trade agreement if disputes continue, but certainly did warn in that same interview that NAFTA is in a somewhat uncertain position at this time.

My party has said for a very long time that NAFTA is not just uncertain, it is bad news for Canada. Yesterday in another journal, the Globe and Mail , the minister was quoted as saying that we may see a move away from the dispute settlement panel procedures into a broader based discussion.

Clearly the harassment by the United States on this issue continues on a variety of fronts. Farmers know what they have given up after the NAFTA deal and under the trade policy of the Liberal government in general. Lumber producers know what they have given up under Liberal trade policy. Unemployed workers in the manufacturing and service industries know what they have given up under Liberal trade policy and I would like to ask the minister or his representative can they tell this House what Canadians have gained from Liberal trade policy.

All we see is the backtracking now coming to the realization that NAFTA is not in Canada's interest, and implementing such measures, for example, is eliminating the rail transportation subsidies. Canadians on a wide variety of fronts know what they have lost from Liberal trade policy. Can the representative explain what exactly Canadians have gained?

[Budget Implementation Act, May 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-17, in particular those clauses relating to unemployment insurance.

Canadians have quite rightly been proud of the unemployment insurance benefits in this country. During the so-called free trade debate one of the grave concerns expressed by the New Democratic Party was the attempts that would follow the agreements to Americanize our unemployment insurance scheme among other issues such as health care.

What we see in the bill is not a true reform of legislation, not a true measure to build a system in Canada which really addresses the needs of the unemployed but rather regressive steps to attack the unemployed rather than to address the very serious question of unemployment.

During the discussions in the last session of Parliament on Bill C-21 brought in by the former Conservative government and Bill C-113, the Liberal opposition at that time was vehement in its opposition to the regressive measures in those two pieces of legislation. The clauses on unemployment insurance in Bill C-17 far exceed the regressive measures in those previous pieces of legislation which were decried loudly by members opposite when they were in opposition and now are being implemented with a vengeance in the bill.

Just to give one example, in 1989, 90 per cent of unemployed people were covered by unemployment insurance in this country. Just four short years later, after the Conservative government trashed the unemployment insurance scheme, only 65 per cent of unemployed workers are covered by unemployment insurance.

Let us be clear what we are talking about here. This is an insurance scheme. Under the previous regime, the government withdrew its funding and financial obligation for unemployment insurance. It is an insurance scheme by employers and employees. Insurance means you pay into a scheme and you are entitled to a benefit from that scheme.

I am truly shocked that the current Liberal government has chosen to bring forward a piece of legislation even worse than that brought in by the Conservative government. I am sure there is not a Canadian in this country who expected this government to be worse than the previous government. It is going some to say that it could actually accomplish that in the bill. That is exactly what it has done.

I want to give a few specific examples. First, Bill C-17 will introduce a means test to determine the level of rates. What is really concerning about the bill is that it hurts those in areas of high unemployment even more than those in areas with less unemployment. I cannot believe the provinces and territories are not screaming from one end of this country to the other because what this bill does as it has done in the past is simply transfer responsibility for supporting unemployed workers while they are looking for a job to the provinces and territories. Once again this is what the government is doing.

The duration of benefits has been slashed across the country just at the time that long term unemployment becomes a problem. In the past we saw that the duration of unemployment for Canadians was much shorter than it now is. What is even more shocking is that at present only 59 per cent of Canadians have full time jobs in the country.

A report released this week called "The Outsiders" reports levels of poverty and unemployment not seen since the Depression.

On the one hand we have in our country an economic system in crisis. For far too many people this is not a recessionary period, this is a depression. On the other hand we have a Liberal government that says it is going to take a new way but has taken an even worse way than the previous government in attacking the unemployed.

In the February budget 60 cents on every dollar in cuts was taken from the unemployed through job cuts and cuts to other social programs.

The second matter that is very concerning about this bill directly contrasts to the red book which we hear so much about. In the red book it was said: "The people are irritated with governments that do not consult or that disregard their views or try to conduct key parts of public business behind closed doors. A Liberal government will take a series of initiatives to restore confidence in the institution of government".

What has it done in this legislation? It is one of the biggest grabs of power by the government from Parliament that I have seen in the seven years I have been in this House of Commons. Under this legislation, particularly the pilot projects section, the power will rest solely with the government to determine the rules and the nature of those projects, not with Parliament.

The government has appropriated $20 billion of taxpayers' money. It has said that it will not be all of the parties elected to Parliament that will help to decide how it develops this program. It is us, it is the government. That is exactly what makes people cynical about the majority kind of government we have and exactly contrary to the red book.

These regressive measures regarding unemployment insurance completely undermine any faith that might exist in the social policy review undertaken by the minister of human resources. The minister and the government on the one hand are saying they are really going to look at changes to the system. We in the New Democratic Party agree. We know the system does not function, that younger families are falling even faster into poverty and that the gap between the rich and poor is increasing. We agree with looking at this.

However, what has the government done? It said on the one hand that it is going to consult everybody. In the secret document leaked this week it said it is going to spend over a million dollars not to do but to promote social policy review. At the same time in a piece of omnibus legislation hidden away we see that this government is setting the very parameters of new social policy.

The minister of human resources must answer to Canadians. Where is the review when the ministry of finance under this bill has set the policy?

We have here a very hypocritical piece of legislation at least in terms of meeting the kind of rhetoric we heard both when the Liberals were in opposition and now with their commitment to consult Canadians.

All Canadians are concerned about the social service network and how we should deal with that, none more so than the New Democratic Party. Let me mention several things that could achieve some of the same objectives.

The government did not come in with a full employment policy.

I hope it will support my private member's bill on full employment which will be up for discussion next month. If it had through a real plan reduced unemployment to about 9.5 per cent, the $2.4 billion cutback that we saw in this year's budget could have been avoided.

If the government were to truly focus on a full employment program we would not need nor would we even be talking about changes to the unemployment insurance system. We have to get away from the myth that unemployment is free and that we can deal with unemployment if we just hit the unemployed a little harder.

The New Democratic Party is totally opposed to the measures that the government has brought in regarding unemployment insurance. They do not address the serious problems in our society. In fact they make them worse.

I do not believe that Canadians elected this government to make the lives of millions of Canadians worse. That is exactly what is being done in the bill. I hope that the provinces and territories will stand and counter as well the measures that are in the bill.

Unfortunately, the objective of slash and trash has become much more the watchword as we see reflected in the bill than real reform and a real concern for Canadians. The social and financial costs of unemployment are huge. We know that but we will not address those costs by making it more difficult or by trying to transfer the problem.

I have received thousands of letters, petitions and cards opposing these unemployment insurance changes. I agree with them because they do not deal with the substantive issue in society.

In conclusion I hope the government will re-read its own speeches on Bill C-21 and Bill C-113 where it opposed even less drastic measures than the ones it is now taking. Shame on you is what I have to say to the Liberal Party.

[Employment, May 25th, 1994]

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

Today a report was released that indicated young families in this country are living in conditions of poverty not seen since the Depression.

According to a departmental document leaked yesterday, the government is prepared to spend over $1 million on what can only be called self-promotion of the social policy review-not doing it, but promotion of the social policy review.

I would like to ask the minister if he would take those funds, over $1 million, and put them into job creation for these young families that are quickly sinking into poverty.

[Air Safety, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, rationalization, modernization, automation: all these buzzwords have been used to justify a situation which should have many Canadians, especially rural and northern Canadians, concerned about safe air travel.

The previous Canadian government undertook a plan of closures of air traffic control towers across northern Canada. Personnel was reduced, automated systems put in place, and in one case in Watson Lake, Yukon a system called Readac has been observed to record clear skies in a raging snowstorm.

The question of air safety is an extremely concerning issue. The Union of Canadian Transport Employees has raised its concern with members of Parliament about the possible elimination of emergency response services in category one to three airports.

I call on the government not to follow the previous government's path of playing with Canadian safety, to act in the interest of the safety of Canadians, and to look at the safety of these systems for the north.

[Safety In The Workplace, April 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, today, April 28, is a national day of mourning for workers who have been injured or died on the job.

Each working day, four Canadians are killed on the job.

Every seven seconds of every working day a serious injury occurs. Every year workers die from workplace diseases that too often go unrecorded and uncompensated. Health and safety standards and their enforcement continue to be weakened by governments nationally and internationally.

I call on this government to honour this national day of mourning as passed in this House of Commons by fighting for good labour standards for our workers and, in order to honour our workers, that the Prime Minister agree to fly flags at half-mast on this day of mourning for the workers of this country who have lost their lives at work.

[Tobacco Tax, April 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the lowering of the cigarette tax this party presented several very good reasons why it should not be done.

It would increase smoking among youth according to Statistics Canada and would also increase smoking among the general population and add to our health costs.

Today we see that total Canadian production of cigarettes reached 5.8 billion in March, the highest in eight years. Clearly the policy of this government to reduce cigarette taxes is going to add to our health care costs, add to the illness of Canadians.

I call on the Minister of Health to finally stand up for the health of Canadians, to fight on behalf of Canadians and to fight this policy which has only led to more smoking among Canadians and greater health risks.

[Trade, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. On January 1 the government signed the NAFTA promising an end to trade wars with the United States.

Barely four months since the signing of that agreement we have not just a scuffle but a full-fledged attack on our Canadian wheat farmers, Minutemen missiles and all. NAFTA seems to offer about as much protection as an umbrella would against an American missile. Do not look up.

NAFTA has failed the Canadian wheat farmer and the barley farmer. What specific assurances has the minister given to these farmers that their interests will be taken into consideration? What specifically can he tell us today?

[Petitions, April 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions signed by residents of the Northwest Territories and Yukon regarding the protection of the Porcupine caribou herd.

The petitioners call on Parliament to formally reaffirm the position stated in 1987 of the best way to ensure the future of the many shared wildlife populations of the coastal plain. Canada's preference would be for the United States to follow the example already set in both the adjacent Arctic national wildlife refuge lands and on the Canadian side of the border by designating the 1002 area as wilderness.

This was the position taken by the previous Parliament. I agree with my constituents and those of the Northwest Territories that the Porcupine caribou herd is a national treasure. I would urge the government and Parliament reaffirm that position as these petitioners request.

[Young Offenders Act, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House I raised the question of young offenders and pointed out that there was much we had to do in prevention. I would also say as part of that prevention, we must also look at the structural unemployment of young people. Officially we have an unemployment rate of over 17 per cent of young people, whereas in fact it is much higher.

I know the government has a youth corps program. It is a start, but it is not addressing the high unemployment of young people. I urge the government to bring forward a real plan for youth.

We are all concerned about youth crime. We know there were provincial, territorial and federal meetings on the Young Offenders Act. I would like to see similar meetings on the very high rate of youth unemployment.