Yvon Godin

[Division No. 1188, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, for this vote I would like the names of the hon. members for Winnipeg Centre, Yukon and Bras d'Or—Cape Breton added.

[Division No. 1186, March 22nd, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the member for Burnaby—Douglas was not here for the last vote.

[Blood Samples Act, March 21st, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I recently rose in this House to ask a question to the Speaker about the fact that in 1986 the auditor general recommended that the unemployment insurance account be integrated with the government's general funds.

My question was the following:

Last Tuesday, the auditor general criticized the size of the surplus in the employment insurance fund and indicated that it should not exceed a maximum of $15 billion, instead of the current $25 billion.

It is now about $28 billion.

I asked:

Will the government listen to the auditor general, as it did in 1986, and reduce the size of the surplus by increasing the number of unemployed who can qualify?

I was disappointed by the reply of the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions, who said:

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning we have continually lowered employment insurance contributions. In 1993, these contributions were at $3.07, while today they are at $2.40. This is progress and we will continue.

That is what the government said.

I find it regrettable, because the question had to do with the increase in the number of unemployed. In Canada, only 30% of women qualify for employment insurance.

Only 15% of young people qualify for employment insurance, and the government says this is to encourage them to find jobs.

Do you know what this means? It means that in my region, the Atlantic region, for example, in our fishing communities, the Liberal government is telling young people that they do cannot remain in Atlantic Canada and should move somewhere else in Canada. We are losing all our young people because of discrimination in the EI system. A young person who is a newcomer on the labour market must accumulate 910 hours of work to qualify, while someone who is already on the labour market only has to accumulate 420 hours.

The auditor general said that too much money already, or $15 billion, has been transferred from the employment insurance account to the general funds. I saw no one in Canada take to the streets because employment insurance contributions were too high. Thousands took to the streets, however, because they no longer qualified for EI.

Saturday evening, the Prime Minister of Canada admitted that he had gone too far with his cuts to employment insurance and that this was why he had lost the election in the Atlantic region.

I hope my colleague does not answer the same way his colleague did during question period.

Even the Liberal caucus of the Atlantic region made a proposal, during the Liberal convention held in Ottawa last week-end, to change employment insurance.

Does the government not recognize that it has hurt many Canadians throughout the country with the changes it has brought to employment insurance? The issue is not contributions to employment insurance, but rather the cuts to employment insurance that have hurt Canadians and, Canadian women in particular, with only 30% of women and 15% of young people qualifying for employment insurance. Those people contribute to the EI fund. They pay contributions, yet they are not eligible to benefits.

I would like to have the opinion of the government on that. I hope not to hear the same things I have been hearing for the past few months.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the reason I rise to ask a question of my colleague from Vancouver East is that I want to go on record, and I want her to go on record, with the question that I will raise with her.

All the time those pockets of unemployment were in Vancouver East, we know that the Liberal who was in Vancouver East before 1997 received money. We just heard our colleague say that she was not told that the riding could get money if it had pockets of unemployment that were even higher than its own region. We heard the minister say it existed for a period of time. I raised a question in the committee of human resources last week and was told it started in June 1998 and all MPs were advised of it.

My question is clear and I want the hon. member to answer. Was she advised that if her region had pockets of unemployment it could apply for a grant from the government to help the workers of Vancouver East where there is a high level of unemployment? I think this is important. If the answer is that she was not told, then I would suggest that that is why we need this inquiry to clear the air once and for all to save our programs for Canadians who need it badly and to be able to help people in regions where there is high unemployment.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

The hon. member says the company could have gone to Toronto. It does not matter, that is Canadian.

However, each and every day the Minister of Human Resources Development stands in the House and says “It does not matter where jobs are created in Canada. It does not make any difference if these jobs are created in Toronto, in Montreal, or in Acadie—Bathurst. What is important is that we are creating jobs”. That is what she said.

If the minister wants to change her tune and say that we are going to help the regions in need, such as the Acadie—Bathurst region where our people are in a big black hole, with no employment insurance, no social assistance and no jobs, because that is where the money should go, I will stand up and I will applaud her and I will tell her that she is doing the right thing.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, this might give me the opportunity to make another speech instead of answering a question.

First, I want to thank my hon. colleague, the chief government whip, who talked in his speech about Wal-Mart and another company.

The problem is that these transitional jobs fund programs were meant to help companies which lacked the necessary cashflow to create jobs, not to induce a company to settle in one riding rather than another. When Wal-Mart settled in Canada, it was going to have stock distribution centers whether we liked it or not. Automatically it did not really need this grant.

I do not want to take anything away from my hon. colleague. He got it and I am happy for him.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Vancouver East.

I am pleased to speak today on the Bloc Quebecois motion calling for a public commission of inquiry into the HRDC contributions scandal.

The mismanagement of contributions programs by this Liberal government is not just a matter of financial management, it is also a question of credibility.

Because this government has not assumed its responsibilities and has neglected to manage this contributions program, Canadians no longer have any confidence in the government's role in job creation. And yet, the transitional job fund is not a bad program in itself.

The government definitely has a role to play in job creation, but by using these funds for political purposes the Liberals have taken away Canadians' confidence in their government and in their MPs.

The government has a role to play because Canadians have always asked “What are we getting in return for all the taxes we pay?” From 1986 to 1993, the Conservative government initiated the cuts to employment insurance, and now the Liberal government is continuing these cuts. What was needed, supposedly, was something to try to get some jobs back.

Is it working? Perhaps not, but there are certainly some for whom jobs have been created. In my riding of Acadie—Bathurst, the money helped businesses in my region. The people who got work, who were able to work, are proud of it. At issue in the House today is the way it was managed, and I will get back to that a little later.

It suits the Reformers to have the government's credibility undermined by this mismanagement, but it is not in the interest of Canadians. The Reform Party wants us to end government assistance programs.

I put questions twice in a row to my Reform colleagues. They told me specifically that they are not in favour of job creation programs. They did say it was all right for the handicapped—perhaps they will have a hard time answering that—but they are willing to drop the rest.

I have to say that I believe that when a person has no work, that person is almost handicapped. When a man has no work and has a wife and children to feed and the children go to school on an empty stomach, he is almost handicapped.

It is important to maintain the programs and for the government to gain back some credibility through them. If the government has hidden nothing regarding the programs, it should undertake a public inquiry, it should put it out on the table. For the past five or six weeks this House has been held hostage because of government credibility in the programs it has mismanaged.

The Reform members would be happy to see the government get out of pension, health and income security programs. Now the Liberals are helping the Reformers with their agenda of reducing the role of government.

As I just said, this House has been paralyzed for five weeks because of the scandal at Human Resources Development Canada. What is clear is that, in spite of the efforts of all the opposition parties to shed light on what happened, we have no answers to fundamental issues surrounding the management of HRDC grants.

We must immediately set up an independent public commission of inquiry to get non partisan and legitimate answers. Canadian taxpayers' money was mismanaged and there are clear indications that it was used for political purposes.

It is not normal, for instance, for a company in the region of Mataquac, to receive about $16,000 and then, during the same month, to give the Liberals over $7,900, just before an election campaign. This is not normal. We have to look into this.

It is not normal for the Prime Minister of Canada to sell his share of a business to a friend who does not even have the money to pay him and then, all of sudden, for that friend to receive a grant from the government. When will Canadians wake up, once and for all, indicate in the polls that their support for the Liberals is much less than 60% or 50%, and tell the Liberals that the programs are being mismanaged by the Prime Minister? This is the same person who authorized the cuts to employment insurance. My riding of Acadie—Bathurst loses over $65 million a year because of these cuts to EI benefits, and people are suffering.

Let us take an example. The riding of Vancouver East, my colleague's riding, could not even qualify for the transitional jobs fund, since the unemployment rate there is over 13%. Before she was elected as an NDP member, her predecessor, the incumbent before 1997, was entitled to the benefits of the transitional jobs fund. Is this not an issue that should be looked into?

Last week I was at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I asked the question: When was the transitional job fund criterion changed to allow projects in regions with unemployment rates of 8% when there are other regions with higher rates of unemployment?

The answer was that it was changed in June 1998. How was it that the Liberal member for Vancouver East received money before 1997?

We are sick and tired of these lies that are offered up day after day. We want a public inquiry to lay the matter to rest once and for all and to save our programs. That is why the NDP will be voting in favour of this motion and I congratulate the Bloc Quebecois on moving it.

Is the Prime Minister afraid of the truth? Does it make any sense that an American company such as Wal-Mart, which is making billions and which has just set up a warehouse in Canada and does not need money, should receive $500,000 from the government, when this same government and the Prime Minister are saying that Atlantic Canadians abused the EI system and that that is why benefits had to be cut?

This sort of thing looks bad. It is the sort of thing that is going to lose us programs. This is why it is very important that this commission of inquiry be created, so that some light can be shed and so that the House can be freed up to deal with other problems facing Canadians, such as health, which is the number one problem in this country, and the cutbacks in our health care programs. Right now, the NDP is the only party in the House that has risen every day and asked questions on health since the budget was brought down.

If we did not have this problem at HRDC, maybe the opposition parties could do their job and take their responsibilities.

If the Prime Minister of Canada has nothing to fear from whatever was done in Shawinigan, then he should allow the setting up of a public commission of inquiry that could finally shed some light on this scandal and on the lack of credibility of this government.

People in our ridings tell us “This does not make sense. These things have to stop. It is high time this matter was cleared up once and for all. We want you to be able to work on other issues, such as our health care system, which we are in the process of losing”.

I think this is very important, and I will repeat it again. They say sometimes you have to repeat something 27 times before it gets into people's heads. The transitional jobs fund was created only and specifically because of EI cuts. Today, the Reform Party would like that program eliminated. The only reason for that is that they do not have any member in our part of the country. In winter, in the Acadian peninsula, the unemployment rate, can reach 40%, because the fishing industry is closed.

Again, I am asking the House to support the motion brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois for the creation of a public commission of inquiry to enlighten parliament and all Canadians.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question again to my colleague from the Reform Party.

He seems to be indicating that the programs are not creating jobs. I come from Acadie—Bathurst, in northeastern New Brunswick, and I can tell you that we have been hard hit by the changes to the employment insurance. I would be reluctant to say the program did not help our small businesses create jobs. The Reform Party keeps on saying that no program can help. I must disagree.

My question is for the hon. member from the Reform Party. I would like him to be somewhat clearer than his colleague.

Does he believe government programs can help create jobs in regions like mine where there are no jobs? If one looks at the peninsula, the unemployment rate climbs to 40% in winter when there is no more fishing.

It is not the program that should be criticized, but its management. We would like to get to the bottom of this. We would like a public inquiry to get to the bottom of this and save those programs that are good for Canadians.

[Supply, March 21st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, for five weeks we have been led to believe that the Reform Party is opposed to the government's regional development programs and that all it wanted to do is object.

I would like to remind the House briefly that there is a $27 billion surplus in the employment insurance fund. The transitional job fund was created to try to make up for the money taken away from unemployed workers, and to help them find work.

Could my hon. colleague tell us if the Reform Party is opposed to the program or only to the way it is managed and to the government's lack of accountability for taxpayers' money?

[Supply, March 20th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I asked the following question in the House:

Mr. Speaker, because of the EI reforms brought in by this Liberal government and the Progressive Conservative government before it, only 30% of unemployed women are receiving EI benefits, compared to 70% in 1989.

A Statistics Canada study shows that EI cuts are the leading reason for the increase in poverty among families with children.

Is the Minister of Human Resources Development prepared to admit that, by reducing the eligibility of unemployed parents for EI benefits, she is increasing child poverty?

At the time, the minister answered:

The hon. member opposite would have us believe that women are not making gains in the labour force, in fact, the opposite is true. The unemployment rate of 5.8% for adult women is the lowest in almost 25 years.

This might well be the lowest, but the fact is that women no longer qualify for employment insurance; they now are on social assistance. If they are on social assistance, they do not qualify for employment insurance and therefore they do not show up in the statistics, in the numbers quoted by the minister. This is one of the problems we are experiencing these days.

I rose countless times in the House and put questions to the minister on employment insurance only to have her answer: “Well, people used to abuse the system, to do this or that”. At long last, the Prime Minister of Canada admitted on Saturday night during his party's convention in Ottawa that they lost in the Atlantic provinces because of the cuts they made to employment insurance and because they hurt people in the region. The Prime Minister finally realized it.

Today, the Globe and Mail reported that they want to make two changes to the employment insurance. They mentioned the clawback provisions and the intensity rule. If the government and the Liberals think they will buy votes in Atlantic Canada by raising the intensity rule to 55%, I can tell them that 55% of $6 is not much. People will get about $3.50.

People will continue to live in poverty. The Liberals have yet to understand the problem in Atlantic Canada. The problem there is that people do not qualify, they do not work the 910 hours required. Young people do not qualify. Will the Liberals finally realize the harm they have caused to families, to parents, to single mothers?

Will this government understand once and for all? Will the Prime Minister of Canada understand, or will he only listen to the Ontario Liberal caucus which is coming up with the clawback provision and the intensity rule, because they cannot live with these problems in southern Ontario?

The real problems of Atlantic Canada is that people do not qualify. Women do not qualify. Fish plant workers do not qualify. Construction workers do not qualify and the amounts they receive are inadequate.

I hope the government will make the real changes that I have been asking for in this House since June 7, 1997 when I was elected here. I won over my predecessor, Doug Young, who made cuts in the Atlantic provinces.

I hope the Liberals will look into their souls and make real changes.