Yvon Godin

[Appointment Of Commissioner Of Official Languages, December 7th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to take part in this debate on the appointment of the new Commissioner of Official Languages. The NDP supports appointment.

Dyane Adam will be the first woman to hold this position, and the first francophone outside Quebec. This Franco-Ontarian woman has worked in the fields of health and education. She knows the importance for minority communities, the francophone communities outside Quebec and the anglophone community within Quebec, of having health care and education services provided in their own language.

The role of the Commissioner of Official Languages is very important for linguistic minorities. According to the Official Languages Act, the role of the commissioner is to:

—to take all actions and measures within the authority of the Commissioner with a view to ensuring recognition of the status of each of the official languages and compliance with the spirit and intent of this Act in the administration of the affairs of federal institutions, including any of their activities relating to the advancement of English and French in Canadian society.

The commissioner investigates either on his own initiative or in response to complaints received and submits reports and recommendations according to the act.

As an Acadian, I am concerned about the rights of language minorities. We have come a long way since the passing of the Official Languages Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Unfortunately, there is a long way to go yet. On Prince Edward Island, parents have to fight before the courts to get a French school.

The federal government programs supporting the Official Languages Act are paramount to the minority language communities. However, since 1993, the Liberals have cut the budgets of these programs by 23%. The progress made may well be wiped out if the government goes with the status quo and does not provide more funding to the official languages support programs.

This summer, the Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick had to operate without its director general because of cuts imposed by the Liberal government.

The cuts, privatization, devolution and partnerships with the private sector encouraged by the Liberal government eliminate certain rights of francophones outside Quebec.

We need a Commissioner of Official Languages who will continue the work started by her predecessor in this area, Victor Goldbloom.

The NDP supports Dyane Adam.

[Employment Insurance, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I trust the new minister from New Brunswick will be more sensitive than her colleague to the fate of the unemployed.

In my travels across the country, I met a young unemployed New Brunswicker who confided in me about his despair. He had accumulated 22 weeks of work, but this is not enough for a first-time worker to be eligible for benefits. The young man is no longer able to meet his payments. He is feeling suicidal.

What does the new minister from New Brunswick intend to do to put an end to this discrimination being suffered by unemployed young people?

[Employment Insurance, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development keeps saying there is nothing wrong with Liberal EI reforms. In my national tour on EI I am hearing a different story from Canadians. In P.E.I. alone 4,000 islanders are now waiting six weeks to have their claims processed. Does the minister believe this situation is acceptable? Does he still believe there is nothing wrong with Liberal EI reforms? If not, what is the minister going to do to correct the situation?

[Merit Principle, October 27th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I believe it was last June that I rose in the House and asked the Minister of Human Resources Development to visit the Acadian peninsula to see the problems there.

I am pleased to rise tonight and again ask the minister to visit the Acadian peninsula. Last night I was at a meeting in the Restigouche region, and people wanted the Minister of Human Resources Development to visit, because they are suffering as a result of the changes to employment insurance. All the cuts are making things miserable in the region.

I have even had calls from people in the Gaspé, who want to meet and discuss the problem that arises wherever there are people who fish, who work in the forest or who work in construction.

You know, tonight, we voted on the business of small weeks. Some members still do not understand the problem that can create in the regions. I was disappointed to see the Liberals voting against. I was also disappointed to see the Reformers voting against it, because they are always on their feet in the House asking questions about employment insurance. Every day they get up and say that the government is taking money from workers and must return it to them. When the Reformers get the opportunity to vote for something good, they turn around and vote against it. I am disappointed.

I was also disappointed to see how Liberal members voted. The government opposite, which set up the pilot project in April of last year, knows full well that people with small weeks cannot get equitable EI benefits that will put bread on the table for their children.

This is why we are inviting the minister to come and visit us. What is he afraid of? Is he afraid the same thing will happen in Thetford Mines, Newfoundland or Vancouver? Is he afraid of that? I can organize meetings with people, and he would not have to be nervous about coming. He ought to come and find out right away for himself what is going on. I believe it is important.

Last week, 40 women employed by fishers lost their employment insurance. All of these work for small family businesses and all lost their employment insurance. They are concerned. They have to get through the winter. This is not the first time I have risen in this House to invite the Minister of Human Resources Development to come down to my riding.

The Minister of Human Resources Development claims that the solution is to create employment. Let him come down to visit us, sit around a table with us, and we will try to find some solutions. Until then, people must not be punished. They must not have what they are entitled to taken away from them. These are workers who have contributed to the employment insurance fund. It is theirs. There is $20 billion in the employment insurance fund. How can the Minister explain that there are people suffering today, that there are people drawing $36 a week in EI benefits because of the changes to the system?

Yesterday, that is what the people of Restigouche were asking me. They said “We want the Minister of Human Resources Development to come down here so we can talk to him and show him how the system is making people suffer”.

It is not unusual for a minister to travel around the country in order to fulfil his responsibilities and to talk with people. Once again I am asking the minister—

[Employment Insurance, October 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, fishing is very often a family business. During the last eight years, women have worked for their husbands as dockhands and have always qualified for EI benefits. In the last few weeks, the Department of Human Resources Development has turned down EI applications from 40 women because of the arm's length provisions.

Is the Minister of Human Resources Development against women working in the fishing industry or would he agree that his department discriminated against these women?

[Criminal Code, October 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, on June 1, 1998, I rose in the House and put a question to the Minister of Human Resources Development. I will repeat that question because it is an important one.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue should be ashamed for saying that he made workers pay the debt. While the Minister of Finance is spending the $17 billion surplus in the EI fund, fewer than 40% of unemployed workers are receiving EI benefits.

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development stop conducting studies and take action? Will he change the EI eligibility criteria in order to help the 780,000 workers who are not receiving benefits?

I was pleased with the minister's answer in June, which went like this:

Mr. Speaker, as I have said on many occasions in this House and throughout the country, it is clear that our government is concerned about the fact that only 42% of unemployed workers are covered under the existing EI system.

The minister was “concerned” that only 42% of unemployed workers were entitled to EI.

The minister went on to say:

My department has asked Statistics Canada to add a number of questions over the coming months so that we may get a clear picture of the situation these unemployed workers are facing. My department will be able to analyze the information provided by Statistics Canada and make informed decisions.

It is now October and finally the report we have all been waiting for is here. The minister is now hiding behind the fact that 78% of unemployed workers are eligible for EI. But they are eligible under the new criteria. What is worrisome, and must be discussed, is that the report indicates that only 43% of former contributors qualify for EI.

The amendments have been prejudicial to women in this country, including expectant mothers. In 1997, there were 12,000 fewer applications for maternity benefits. The new eligibility criteria require 700 hours, meaning that most women working part time do not qualify for benefits.

The minister turns around and says that the only reason they do not get EI benefits is that they did not work long enough. We, however, say to the minister that the reason these people no longer qualify is because they changed the criteria.

These 12,000 women did work and did pay their premiums, but because the rules were changed and people are now required to work 700 hours, they no longer qualify.

Another group that no longer qualifies is those who leave their jobs. In Canada, 100,000 workers quit their jobs, but the government says they did not have a good reason to do so and are therefore not eligible for employment insurance benefits, even though these people would have qualified in the past.

In 1993, when the Prime Minister was in the opposition, he sent a letter to people in Quebec, telling them that the Conservative legislation was terrible, that it was unacceptable, because workers who were sexually harassed could not even quit their jobs. He even wrote that workers who were harassed by their employer could no longer leave their jobs.

Now—

[Employment Insurance, October 20th, 1998]

He should be ashamed.

[Employment Insurance, October 20th, 1998]

That's where the money has gone. It's the finance minister who is spending it.

[Employment Insurance, October 20th, 1998]

Paul Martin has all the money. That's the problem.

[Employment Insurance, October 20th, 1998]

That is wrong.