House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was workers.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as NDP MP for Acadie—Bathurst (New Brunswick)

Won his last election, in 2011, with 70% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Petitions March 19th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two petitions in the House.

In the first, 128 petitioners from the riding of Acadie—Bathurst call on Parliament to set up a program to help those affected by the groundfish moratorium.

Employment Insurance March 19th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development's progress report on employment insurance confirms my findings during my tour across the country: the minister's cuts are having painful results.

Naida was refused sick benefits because she was two hours short. Kelly, Sarah and numerous others did not get maternity benefits because the minister requires 400 more hours than before.

The minister said he was waiting for the report before making changes. Now that he has it in front of him, is he going to make changes to employment insurance right away, to finally meet the needs of the workers of this country?

An Act To Amend The Act Of Incorporation Of The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation Of Mackenzie March 18th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, on February 3, 1999, I asked a question to the House. I said that the employment insurance system is an insurance scheme and I asked the following:

Why is the government trying to cut more people off EI benefits and treat them like criminals?

When I toured around the country, I saw this is the way people feel. It is important that the minister be aware of that. People contribute to the employment insurance fund but each time they ask for benefits, they are treated like criminals, like people who are abusing the system. That is the way people feel all around the country.

As I went across the country and met with people they told me that when they apply for employment insurance the human resource people are looking at them as though they are criminals. Surely we do not want the government to treat Canadians that way. That is why I raised the question at that time.

What will the government do about this? It is not right that people across the country should be treated like this at the human resources offices.

I asked a question. But what answers we do get. This is what the minister answered:

The member treats EI as if it were an industry creating employment in the regions.

This is not so. An employment insurance system is not an industry to create employment, it is a system which pays benefits to people who are out of work.

I do not want to go back to the 1970s. What I am saying is that there is a program for which workers and employers are paying. People all around the country tell us that this program belongs to them, to the workers who lose their jobs.

It is unacceptable for the minister to rise in the House and say to me that I am going back to the 1970s. That is not true. I want to live in 1999, with a program built in such a way that when people lose their job, they can receive benefits to support their families, their children, get them something to eat and send them to school.

Canadians are not pleased to get such answers. On need only look at the report by the Minister of Human Resources Development which indicates that the percentage of women in Canada who no longer qualify for employment insurance has risen by 20%.

We must face up to reality. The program is no longer up to doing what it was intended for in the beginning. This is the reason I would like the minister to give us some answers in the coming days, about what he is going to do with the employment insurance program, because the people of Canada, the workers of Canada, are not satisfied.

The people of Windsor are not satisfied when they fill out their income tax returns and find that they have to again pay into employment insurance. They phone us and write us to say so. The situation is the same everywhere, not just in the Atlantic provinces, but in Regina and in Edmonton, Alberta, as well. I have said so on numerous occasions here in this House.

So, I hope the minister can tell us exactly what he is going to do with the employment insurance program.

Employment Insurance March 16th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, today the steelworkers and aluminum workers union presented its official response to the federal government's defence in its dispute over discrimination against youth and women under the Employment Insurance Act.

What was the government's response? It avoided them saying that the applicants have no public interest in contesting the law.

It said that the surplus in the employment insurance fund does not belong to contributors.

It mocks pregnant women saying that its actions are not discriminatory, because pregnancy is a fact of nature, a contention contrary to the supreme court's decision in 1989. It continues to discriminate against young people.

The opposition to the changes to employment insurance comes from Force Jeunesse, la Coalition action-chômage, the CSN, the Quebec federation of labour, the Canadian Labour Congress and the thousands of workers that I met in my tour across Canada.

The consensus is clear. It is time the government assumed its responsibilities and changed employment insurance.

Competition Act, 1998 March 10th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I wish to follow up on a question I asked on December 7, 1998. It was in relation to the fact that the United Nations committee had made it clear the Friday before that the Canadian government did not take good care of the disadvantaged members of its society, and recommended a reform of employment insurance.

At that time I asked the federal government to reform employment insurance. We are in March now and still waiting for the Minister of Human Resources Development to show us some light at the end of the tunnel.

One cannot be satisfied with the response I was given at the time by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, particularly when he spoke of relief for low income families, that is 400,000 taxpayers, when there are 800,000 people who do not qualify for employment insurance. He mentioned the youth employment strategy, but these are short term, not long term jobs.

Today, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development what he intends to do about gappers, and the black hole. He answered this question by saying that only 2,000 workers were affected. Does the minister know what is going on in his department?

In my riding alone, there are 3,100 people who could be called gappers, not to mention those in the riding of my colleague, the hon. member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. Does the minister know what is going on? The only reason there are only 2,000 gappers left is that they are being eliminated.

Camille Thériault, the premier of New Brunswick, said that newcomers will not be eligible. This is what is happening in New Brunswick.

I am asking the Minister of Human Resources Development to look at this issue and wake up. There are people who are suffering. These are individuals who contributed to the employment insurance fund. The minister must realize that seasonal workers are suffering.

There is a problem in Atlantic Canada. There is a problem in Saskatchewan, with only 19% of the unemployed qualifying for employment insurance. There is a problem in Ontario, where only 23% qualify for employment insurance. How can the minister rise in this House and say such terrible things? Why is he not able to look after human resources and employment insurance issues, instead of trying to defend himself by saying “There is no problem. We are creating jobs. We are creating this. We are creating that”.

He should come and see the hardship the Liberal Government of Canada has caused. Now, the provincial government is making matters worse.

I will end on that note. I hope the minister will wake up and take a serious look at this issue.

Employment Insurance March 10th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, last year, the federal government transferred the problem of gappers to the provinces.

New Brunswick's Liberal government is refusing to provide assistance to new gappers.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Will the federal government take up its responsibility anew and provide the necessary funding for those facing the problem of gappers, because this is your responsibility. You are the ones who have created problems for people.

Division No. 325 March 2nd, 1999

I say to my colleague, that on Prince Edward Island, it is the same thing. They cut thousands of people in this province, and they are not very proud of you. I know because I went there.

These are the mistruths that are spouted in this House, because when the hon. member says I am not speaking the truth and that 78% of Canadians qualify for benefits, I say that is not true. Only 36% of those who contribute to employment insurance receive it. That is the problem.

I would hope my colleague understands the figures. If she does not, maybe it is time she went back to school.

Division No. 325 March 2nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about the question I asked on December 8, 1998.

People sometimes wonder why those of us on this side of the House lose our voices. It is because we have to speak up loudly on certain issues. On the other side, they do not seem to understand the problem they have created for Canadians.

In 1994, after the Liberals were elected, 61% of the unemployed could qualify for benefits. That number has dropped to 38%. Even the United Nations blamed the Liberal government for its cuts in employment insurance.

I asked a question to the Deputy Prime Minister, and got the following response from the parliamentary secretary:

The member refers to what is called the B/U rate and suggests that it is down around 40%.

What is referred to here is the number of people qualifying for employment insurance. I continue with the response:

The correct number is 78%.

The correct number is not 78%. It has gone down to less than 36%, because the 78% is 78% of 36%. That is the correct number.

I cannot understand how my colleague over there can stand up and state that 78% of Canadians can qualify for employment insurance, with all the cuts that have been made.

In order to receive maternity benefits, a woman has to have accumulated 700 hours. A person who becomes sick needs 700 hours, and a newcomer on the workforce 910 hours. That is what I tried to explain in the House, that the cuts in employment insurance have resulted in only 36% of people paying into employment insurance being able to draw benefits.

I have travelled across the country, province by province. I have even gone to Whitehorse in the Yukon. I have heard the horror stories resulting from the cuts that are affecting people throughout the country. It happens not only in the Atlantic region, but in Regina, Winnipeg, Nanaimo, Vancouver, Prince George, Whitehorse and Windsor, in the riding of the Deputy Prime Minister, where people working in the automotive industry are suffering from the cuts to employment insurance.

How is it that, on the other side of the House, the member can rise and say that 78% of Canadians qualify for benefits? She then turns around and says that these are people who have not worked. Does she think we are crazy or what? We know that people who have not worked do not qualify for employment insurance. These are not the people we are talking about. We are talking about those who have worked.

The Budget March 2nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke thinks coast to coast means going from Lake Ontario to Lake Huron. I can tell him it means going from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

In 1969, the federal government paid 50% of health care costs across the country, in each province. In New Brunswick, there is a Liberal government; in Nova Scotia, there is also a Liberal government; in Newfoundland, there is another Liberal government. And yet, they still cut health care.

I would like our colleague to tell us about the Liberals currently in power, who have cut. What sort of government are they, these Liberals?

The Budget March 2nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is saying that the danger of reducing taxes is that programs would have to be cut.

Would he agree with me that cutting employment insurance has hurt working people? My question is very simple.