Yvon Godin

[Supply, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on February 17, 1999, I asked the following question in the House:

Mr. Speaker, this budget confirms the Minister of Finance's continuing dependency on the EI fund. He is using the surplus in the EI fund to fill his coffers and line the pockets of millionaires. While the minister is paying off his debt on the backs of the unemployed, there is nothing in his budget for those who do not qualify for employment insurance.

I put the question to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Human Resources Development was the one who answered. I asked what was the amount of the surplus in the EI fund.

The minister told me it was $4.9 billion. He went on to add:

However, I am amazed that, on the opposition side, they keep pushing a pitiful and simplistic solution as the best way to help the unemployed, and that is to keep them on EI as much and as long as possible.

We on this side want to give the unemployed hope, a global strategy that will enable them to join the workforce. Unlike members on the other side, we want to give them hope, not dependency.

When it comes to dependency, it is the Minister of Finance who is dependent on employment insurance. Workers who have lost their jobs can no longer rely on it.

Even the Liberal member for Fredericton was reported in Time Transcript as saying “We want him to be generous with the EI system”. The Liberal members said that, after April 12, they would meet with the minister to tell him how badly the EI program was hurting Canadian workers.

They know it hurts and they are even discussing the issue, but they are not ready to discuss with members of the opposition and try to find solutions.

Even the bishop of Moncton said last week in L'Acadie nouvelle that the so-called black hole could not be allowed any longer in southeastern New Brunswick. Across the country, everyone knows that changes to employment insurance have hurt people.

I will briefly give an example. I got a call from a voter in my riding who was part of the Atlantic groundfish strategy. He had accumulated more than 850 hours. He made an application for employment insurance because representatives of the groundfish strategy had told him he was eligible for employment insurance benefits. He was told that, no, he was not, and that he would have to go back on the groundfish strategy. He appealed the decision, but he lost his appeal.

When he returned to the groundfish strategy, he was accepted. Later, he made another application for employment insurance benefits with the number of hours supposedly needed, and was told that there had been a mistake the first time and that he would receive employment insurance benefits. So he received his money, plus the benefits of the groundfish strategy. But he had also worked a certain number of hours.

He found himself in another income bracket, so he now owes Revenue Canada more money than usual.

He tried to have the problem settled at Revenue Canada, but he never succeeded. He was not able to obtain a solution from Human Resources Development Canada nor from anybody else. The system no longer works.

[Employment Insurance, April 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal members are finally realizing that the employment insurance program is not generous enough.

The Liberal caucus just set up a committee to look at the problems caused by the employment insurance reform. This a noble but partisan effort.

Does the Minister of Human Resources Development agree that it would be more productive to have this review conducted by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, since members from all parties would then be able to express their views and make this issue a top priority?

[Code Of Ethics, April 13th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on February 11, 1999, I asked a question in the House about the situation in Montreal, where people had to wait 48 hours before getting a hospital bed. In Toronto, authorities were thinking about transferring sick children to the United States. In British Columbia, $10 million were allocated to improve the situation. In Quebec, the figure was $20 million.

The Minister of Health said that we had to be patient, that the budget was coming, that funds would be available, because health was a priority for the Prime Minister. We did as the minister suggested and waited patiently.

In 1969, it will be remembered, the federal government paid up to 50% of hospital expenditures in the provinces. This year, before the budget was brought down, the federal contribution for hospital costs was down to 11%. With the new budget, it has now gone up to about 15%.

The situation is becoming difficult for the provinces. Since health is such a priority for Canadians, it is important to put the emphasis on this issue and to review the cost sharing formula between the federal government and the provinces.

I am sure the federal government will say that it has invested x number of billions of dollars. Yet, at the same time, there are people waiting in the hospital corridors for care. People go to the hospital and have to wait until there is a cancellation to get an operation. Sometimes they have to wait as long as nine months for heart surgery, for example. This is inhumane. It is totally unacceptable.

This is why I put the question on February 11 on behalf of Canadians throughout the country, so the government would invest a lot more and find solutions so that people—our parents, our grandparents, children needing health care—can get a hospital bed and are not put in the corridor. We must have proper care. We must make sure people with heart problems, cancer, or any other health problem, are treated as humans.

It is hard to see people waiting as long as 48 hours in a hospital to be seen by a doctor and receive appropriate care. This should be given high priority.

Government members themselves said that health was a priority for Canadians. I wish to remind the House again that, in 1969, the federal government paid 50% of each province's hospital care costs. Today, it pays around 15%. This is unacceptable. It is difficult for the provinces to administer health care systems if they do not receive the transfer payments from the federal government to which they are entitled and which they need in order to be able to help people.

[Kosovo, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question.

I am really disappointed we only had 17 hours to debate such an important issue in this House. My colleague from Dartmouth and I have spent the whole night in the House to get a chance to speak and give our view on the crisis in Kosovo. This is regrettable, because just yesterday, the Prime Minister told the House there would be a debate and every member would have the opportunity to speak. That is why I wanted to make this point.

I also would like to ask a question to try to clarify the position of the NDP, especially mine and that of my colleagues.

Would my colleague agree that at some point in a war, or in a conflict anywhere in the world, there should be a pause? One must try to open the door to negotiations. One must try to find solutions. This is the reason why the NDP said clearly other people should be approached, including Russia, to try to get them involved.

We must go to Milosevic and tell him “Stop the killing, the massacre you are perpetrating. Stop it, and we will stop the strikes. We will sit at the negotiating table unconditionally to try to find a humanitarian solution for all and for the well being of the whole world.”

I would like to hear what my colleague on the other side of the House has to say.

[Employment Insurance, March 24th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, today's Globe and Mail and National Post report that Liberal backbenchers finally want to see changes in employment insurance.

They have come on side with the United Nations, the report of the minister himself, and the thousands of workers whom I have met in my travels in condemning the changes to employment insurance.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. When is this government going to heed the established consensus and to change employment insurance so as to meet the needs of workers?

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, before the vote I spoke on the motion before the House. I spoke for about 10 minutes in French. I could do 10 minutes in French and 10 minutes in English and do the same speech again, but I will try not to do that.

As I said in my 10 minute speech, I am very discouraged and displeased with the way the government has acted again. We could call it the 50th anniversary of the Liberal Party legislating people back to work, which I do not believe is democratic at all.

When we look at the charter of rights and freedoms, we have equality of rights. When we talk about equality of rights in a country, how can there be equality of rights when the Atlantic provinces do not deserve the same wages as the rest of the country? That is not equality of rights. That is not what Pierre Elliott Trudeau was talking about at that time as a Liberal, and supported by the Liberals.

Every time the government has negotiations it goes the easiest way. It comes to the House and legislates the workers back to work. It makes sure we cannot debate it to defend the people we were elected to work for. Those people we were elected to work for are not only in one group, the group which has all millionaires. It is not only those people. It is the little people, the ones who get up in the morning to make sure that industry continues, the ones who get up in the morning to make sure that all the programs of the government are working.

The senators did not have to go on strike. The MPs did not have to go on strike. We did not have to go on strike, but we had our increase. I think it is a shame, when we talk about equality of rights, that the people who are working for the Government of Canada in the Atlantic provinces have different pay. What is the problem? Are we not allowed to have industry in the Atlantic provinces? Are we not allowed to have work? We have to punish those people by cutting employment insurance because they are using it too much because the government is not doing its work and creating a good economic atmosphere.

The government says that we have to take food off the tables of the working people and their families. That is not enough. Now we have to treat the workers of the government differently. The workers who work in an office in Bathurst, New Brunswick are not treated the same as the ones who work in an office in Edmonton, Alberta. Does that make sense? No.

The people of Atlantic Canada are not pleased with the Liberal members of the government who send them letters which say “While talking to some P.E.I. strikers, it was indicated that they plan to lobby local Liberal MPs to ask whether or not these MPs will vote against their government to support their constituencies in Atlantic Canada”. They say that they receive letters from MPs from the Atlantic provinces saying “We are supporting you”. The people of the Atlantic provinces do not only want words, they want action. They want the Liberal MPs who have been elected to support them, not just in words and letters, but to stand for them because they were elected, the few that are left, by the people of Atlantic Canada.

There are no Liberals left in Nova Scotia. There are just a few in P.E.I. There are only three in New Brunswick and there probably will not be any left after the next election because of the way the Atlantic provinces have been treated by the Government of Canada, this Liberal government.

The Liberals are acting the same way as the Conservatives did in 1989 when they legislated people back to work under the Brian Mulroney government.

That happened again in 1991, under the Conservative government, under Brian Mulroney. The Liberals said “Let us in there and we will not do that. We will treat our workers the right way”. That was until they got elected and we see what is going on today.

Today they want to put farmers against workers. They want to put workers against farmers. Whose fault is it? It is the fault of the Liberal government which is not taking its responsibilities. Do like the charter of rights and say equality for everybody.

Whether a worker comes from New Brunswick or Manitoba they should be paid the same because they are doing the same job.

I am an MP from New Brunswick. I get paid the same as the members from Windsor. I get paid the same amount as the members from Saskatchewan. That is what is called equality.

What did the minister say? “No, it is not true. We pay MPs differently. Some are getting paid more because they stay in the region”. He is not telling the truth. The wages of the MPs are the same across the country.

I remember not too long ago that there were some who were not paid the same, the RCMP. I remember they went to see my predecessor, Doug Young, and he negotiated with the government to get the same wages. I never heard about them again. Does PSAC have to go to see Doug Young? Is he the one who will save this country? Is he the only one who will be able to get the wages for the people of PSAC? Is that the way it works? Does somebody in the Liberal Party have to be paid by the back door? Is that the way it goes?

It is very sad that this government does not treat its people across the country equally. Those people did not have to go on strike. There is a way to do it if the government is serious and if it cares about democracy. The people of PSAC have proposed something. “Why does the government not give us binding arbitration? If it gave us binding arbitration we would agree with the arbitrator”. The arbitrator would come down with a decision. He would evaluate both sides and give a good contract to both sides, and PSAC would agree to that, but it will not agree with what the government is doing today.

There are people working in prisons. What has the government done for them? There are even recommendations on the floor and the government will not even wait for those recommendations. Those people will have to take the 2%, the 2.5% and the 1%. That is not democracy. That is not the way to do things. We are beginning to be treated in the same way as the people in Mexico are. That is wrong. It is totally wrong. The people of this country never thought the Liberals would be that bad, as bad as the Conservatives. People thought if they put the Liberals in things would be a lot better, but no way.

If we look at the wages of the people working for the government and the way they are getting treated, if we look at the people who are having their EI cut and the way people who are suffering every day, that it is not something to be proud of. They cannot be proud of the Liberals. The Atlantic region has learned its lesson now. In Nova Scotia they got rid of every one of them. In New Brunswick we are almost there. We have a bit of work to do yet, and we are going to do it. It needs to be done.

We have to be proud of the workers in our country. We have to be proud of those who get up in the morning to work hard for our country. We have to respect them. They are the base of our country; our working people, men and women. The NDP and I will never accept our working people being treated this way.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill. It does not, however, please me to see the situation our beautiful country has come to. This is not the first time such a thing has happened, either.

First of all, I want to quote from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Which states as follows:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

d) freedom of association.

Freedom of association implies the freedom to negotiate a collective agreement. The preamble to the Canada Labour Code, as quoted by the supreme court, states the following:

Whereas there is a long tradition in Canada of labour legislation and policy designed for the promotion of the common well-being through the encouragement of free collective bargaining and the constructive settlement of disputes; and whereas Canadian workers, trade unions and employers recognize and support freedom of association and free collective bargaining as the bases of effective industrial relations for the determination of good working conditions and sound labour-management relations; ...and whereas the Parliament of Canada desires to continue and extend its support to labour and management in their cooperative efforts to develop good relations and constructive collective bargaining practices—

Today we have Bill C-76, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of government services. It is as if people working for the Government of Canada did not have the same status as other workers in the country.

Today reference is being made to different bargaining tables. There is talk of table 2 and table 4. Table 4 is that of the correction service officers, who will be in a legal strike position on March 26. The table 4 negotiating team voted to accept the bargaining committee report and has asked Treasury Board to sign a collective agreement.

In the bill the government wants passed, which is totally undemocratic, and of which it ought to be ashamed, these people are put in the same position. PSAC is in the process of negotiating a collective agreement in which employees in the Atlantic provinces, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, do not have the same salaries as their counterparts in Alberta or British Columbia.

I am certain that Atlantic region MPs are only too pleased to be paid the same as those from the west. When the President of Treasury Board comes and tells us this is not true, that the salaries are not the same, that they get more money in the west because they live in remote areas, this is wrong. Salaries are the same, it is their expenses that are not.

If a person has to take the plane to northern Manitoba, it costs more, but when it comes to salaries, the salary is the same.

What has been said in the House is wrong. We cannot accept the way Canadians are being treated. Whether they come from the east or the west, people doing the same work deserve the same salary. The problem is not the creation of the workers, but of the government, once again.

Once again the government is going after the workers. Once again, it is committing another injustice in our country. That is where the problem lies.

They do not want it discussed in parliament. They do not want it discussed in the House, so they introduce bills. They say “You are the bad guys. You, the workers, are the bad ones. You are not on the job to give people their tax cheques, and so you are the bad ones. You are not moving the farmers' grain”. They take the growers and try to make them like other government workers.

But it is you, Liberals on the other side of the House, who are creating the problem. You should be ashamed. You should be ashamed of the way you are treating your workers. They are not in reality the best paid.

Some of them are being paid $24,000 and $25,000 a year to do the dirty work of the government, which then turns around and wants to legislate to force them back to work and not give them the opportunity to bargain, an opportunity enjoyed by other Canadians under the charter and legislation.

The Liberals are not the only ones to do that. The Conservatives did it in 1989 and 1991. At that time, I was a union member, and the Liberals were in opposition. They boasted, saying “We would never do that. We would never do that if you put us in government. We would not treat our employees like that”. Today, they have an opportunity not to treat their employees like that, but they are treating them exactly like the Conservatives did in 1989 and 1991, when Brian Mulroney was Prime Minister. This is utterly shameful.

Fourteen years after the pay equity legislation was passed, the federal government should be ashamed to still be dragging its feet and trying to make Canadians believe that it will cost them $4 billion for pay equity, when in fact the government will tax back 60% of that money on people's paycheques. Let the government tell the truth.

I am disappointed at how the House is acting toward democracy and at how it is treating the workers who have helped build our country. Correctional officers are still negotiating and this legislation will force them back to work when they have not even gone out on strike, when they have not even had a chance to go ahead with a committee's recommendation. This is unbelievable. What are things coming to? It looks like we are following Mexico's lead. We are not there yet, but we are headed that way. We are losing our democracy.

I am convinced that, during the election campaign, the Liberals did not tell these workers “We will legislate to force you to go back to work. We will not pay you the same salary in New Brunswick as in Alberta, in Newfoundland as in British Columbia. You do not deserve as much as the others”.

I remember when RCMP officers were paid less if they worked in the maritimes than if they worked in western Canada. They asked my predecessor, Doug Young, to go and see his Liberal colleagues and tell them that it was not right that an RCMP officer in the maritimes was paid differently than an officer out west. They did not pass legislation for the RCMP. They turned to their friend, Doug Young, whom I turfed out with the help of the voters in my riding. They went after a collective agreement and a contract with the same rates of pay Canada wide.

If the RCMP can be paid the same throughout the country, Canada's public servants deserve to be paid the same, whether they work in Newfoundland or Vancouver, in Prince Edward Island, Ontario or the Gaspé. They deserve to be paid the same.

Once again, what is going on is unacceptable. They should not be boasting. This is the 50th time they have legislated workers back to work and that they are denying democratic and collective bargaining rights. What is going on is a disgrace. Their attempt to pass a bill such as this without debate in the House is a disgrace.

We have a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms giving us the right of association. We have legislation giving us the right to bargain collectively, and this government says that it has the power to set all that aside.

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

I just want it to be clear. It is as if the minister said to the House that MPs from Newfoundland or elsewhere were not paid the same. We are not at the provincial level. We are at the federal level.

An MP gets the same salary whether he comes from Newfoundland, New Brunswick or Vancouver. Do the people who work for the federal government not deserve the same salary, whether they come from Newfoundland or New Brunswick or Vancouver or Edmonton, no matter where throughout the country? I am talking about salary here, not expenses.

[Division No. 359, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Chairman, I would like the President of the Treasury Board to clarify one thing.

When we were discussing blue collar workers' salaries, we asked why people on the east coast were paid less than others. The case of members of Parliament was used as an example. The President of the Treasury Board said that certain MPs were compensated at a higher rate than others. I think that all MPs are paid the same amount whether they come from the east coast, from New Brunswick, from Vancouver or from Edmonton.

I know all MPs receive the same salary. The only thing which is different is the travel expense budget for members who live further away.

What was said in the House is not correct. People in the Atlantic provinces deserve to be paid the same salary for similar jobs as the people in the west or anywhere else. In the collective agreement signed with the union this evening to be submitted to its members, is there some reference to the fact that people in the east will be paid the same for the same work as those in the rest of the country?

[Petitions, March 19th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 616 Canadians from across the country and calls for the creation of an independent EI fund.

In addition, they are asking that EI benefits be more easily accessible and of longer duration.