Yvon Godin

[Competition Act, September 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on March 27, 1998, I rose in my place to ask the government to review its practices concerning disability benefits. In Bill C-2 introduced at the beginning of this Parliament, the Liberals turned their backs on those living with a disability.

In their program-slashing frenzy, this government attacked our society's most vulnerable members, those living with a disability. The government expects to cut $1 billion in disability benefits between now and 2005.

I would like to address the appeal process. It takes three to four months for the first-level appeal to be heard. The second stage, the appeal to the review tribunal, takes six months. The third level of appeal, to the appeal board, takes one year.

Let us take the example of one of my constituents, Jean-Marie Doiron. An accident when he was 21 left him in a wheelchair. That was 40 years ago. Jean-Marie worked throughout this period. He did what he could. During the last 14 years, he repaired school textbooks. On turning 60, Jean-Marie decided to apply for the Canada Pension Plan. His doctor decided he should leave the work force because of his handicap eight months after his 60th birthday.

But, because more than six months had elapsed since he had applied to the CPP for disability benefits, he was turned down. Jean-Marie took his appeal to the first level and won. But the government told him it would go to the appeal board.

Jean-Marie has already been waiting one year, and will have to wait one more before his case is heard. There are already several cases like his in the works. It is unbelievable that people are treated this way by the Government of Canada. It is unbelievable that the government goes after the most vulnerable citizens, those who have worked for our country, people like Jean-Marie Doiron, who has been in a wheelchair for the last 40 years and who cannot get CPP benefits, despite all the legislation governing the plan.

I call on the Government of Canada to amend the disability benefit eligibility criteria. In addition, this government should do something about the appeal process so that it does not take Canadians three years to get disability benefits. It is high time that this government demonstrated its commitment to those living with a handicap.

Not content with robbing workers of over $20 billion, now the federal government is going after the disabled. I would like the government to amend the Canada Pension Plan.

[Dna Identification Act, September 21st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on April 1, I rose during question period to ask the minister of defence whether he would put an end to the privatization of non-core activities in several Canadian forces bases.

The privatization of CFB Goose Bay has caused considerable hardship. Close to 200 workers were not rehired by SERCO. Wages have been cut dramatically and the low morale of the base employees has plunged to new depths.

The transitional allowance to compensation workers who had their wages slashed will end April 1, 1999, leaving the affected employees with reduced wages. Just like with the pay equity issue, the government chooses to turn its back on its former employees.

Now the new service provider SERCO is eligible to receive a performance bonus for the next five years if it meets certain criteria. This once again demonstrates that this government is more concerned with lining the pockets of foreign companies than protecting the interests of Canadian workers.

If these bonuses are to occur, the wages and benefits that SERCO employees now receive should be one of the evaluation criteria used in determining whether bonuses should be given. Those employees who are now working for SERCO should receive equitable wages and benefits comparable to what they were receiving as public servants.

The government is willing to give SERCO $875,000 for its performance in the period from August 1, 1998 to March 31, 1999. These bonuses should not be earned on the backs of hardworking employees.

Furthermore there is still great concern that these privatization efforts will be extended to other bases. Six additional sites have been designated to go through the alternate service delivery process.

The communities of Gagetown, Kingston, Shilo, Suffield, Wainwright and Edmonton have a right to know on what basis they are being evaluated.

It is known that these sites will have an opportunity to reach the status of most efficient organization. If these sites are successful in doing so, the ASD process will stop.

How committed is the government to this process? Would further cutbacks in the department impede the MEO process? What is the percentage in savings each site has to achieve to be considered a most efficient organization?

The workers of these bases have a right to know what their goal is. The financial security of entire families hangs in the balance. The experience of CFB Goose Bay has shown us that privatization hurts workers and their families.

Let us hope that the Minister of National Defence has learned his lesson and will put a stop to any further privatization efforts.

[Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, June 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the rumour in this morning's papers is that the government would give the Atlantic provinces and Quebec $550 million for TAGS.

In the month of May alone, thousands of people stopped qualifying for TAGS. They were no longer eligible.

My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Will those who have lost their eligibility for TAGS be able to qualify, or is it just going to be the ones who go off it in August?

[Employment Insurance, June 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in 1993 the Prime Minister clearly stated that the change to the UI system put forward by the Conservative government was having a devastating effect on Canada's unemployed. Why the flip-flop? Currently, 780,000 unemployed workers do not qualify for UI.

Will the Prime Minister stand by his campaign promise and help the unemployed by using the $17 billion surplus to widen accessibility to UI?

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member aptly described the problem with employment insurance and how it affects people in his area.

Many who are listening to us on television today realize that I am frustrated. My frustration stems from the fact that there is real problem when, every day, we see in our riding families and children who are suffering because of the changes to employment insurance. In 1993, the Liberals promised they would not change the system.

We often hear from the other side that employment insurance leads to dependency, that it deters young people from trying to find work. Back home, it does not deter young people from working. The problem is that when they do not find work, they are forced to go on welfare.

Do you have the same problem in your area? Do people have to go on welfare, instead of collecting employment insurance and preserving a minimum of dignity?

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks about people who are out of touch with reality.

What about the current Prime Minister who, when he was in the opposition in 1993, said that, instead of dealing with the roots of the problem, the Conservatives were attacking the unemployed? What happened to the hon. member's Prime Minister? Can he explain this to me, without looking for all kinds of excuses? Let him tell the truth. What happened to the hon. member's Prime Minister?

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, the member talks about the good things the government has done.

Before the government came to power I was old enough to watch television and I remember that at that time the Liberals said they would get rid of the GST. They never got rid of the GST. One Liberal member had to give her resignation and came back after an election.

I have a letter from the Prime Minister dated February 17, 1993 that states when the Conservatives were doing the changes to the EI it was a disaster. It was taking from the working people and it was not morally right. If he wanted to get elected in 1993 he would change all that. Change how, by beating on the kids and the parents of this country? That is how he did it. That is how the government got rid of the deficit and balanced the budget. They are proud of that? They should be ashamed of themselves.

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate my colleague from Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok for his presentation aimed at illustrating the problem we have in our region. In the Gaspé and the Acadian peninsulas, the problem is about the same.

I ask my colleague whether he finds it acceptable for the present Prime Minister to accuse the former Conservative government as my predecessor, Doug Young, did by saying that this would be disastrous for New Brunswick. I would like to know what he thinks about this.

As I said earlier to my colleague on the other side of the House, what happened to the Liberals between the time they were in opposition and the day they took office? Something happened to them, and the member, who has more experience than me, can perhaps explain this.

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, what I would like to know is what stings a government when it comes into office.

I have here a letter from the Prime Minister sent to a region in Quebec, which says, and I will quote briefly from it, “Clearly the government is not very concerned about the victims of the economic crisis—he was talking about the Conservatives at the time—because instead of going after the heart of the problem, they go after the unemployed”.

Now they are in power. Does this mean that they were living in the past in 1993? Were they stung by a bee as they took office so they could go after the unemployed too? It is shameful. I would like the hon. member to tell me what stung the Liberal members.

[Employment Insurance, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the sooner they quit doing studies and get on with it, the happier I will be.

Seventeen billion dollars is a lot of money. Why is this government refusing to help unemployed workers facing hard times? Sixty per cent of them are not receiving benefits and, of those who are, many are getting barely 30% of their salary.

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development show that he has a heart and increase EI benefits so that poor families can buy clothing and food for their children?