Yvon Godin

[Employment Insurance, June 1st, 1998]

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?

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague has just mentioned in quoting the letter, my predecessor, Doug Young, did the same thing to Inkerman, New Brunswick, before 1993. He told 700 people in a room there “If you elect me, I will fight on your behalf. I will fight on your behalf for employment insurance, because otherwise it will be disastrous for New Brunswick”. He sounded like the current Prime Minister.

You must understand that people at home do not want to be on employment insurance. They want to work. But what happens? With the cuts to EI, people stop receiving benefits in January and end up in the so-called black hole. They get $165 a week before taxes, which amounts to $135. No one on the other side of the House can live on so little.

My colleague on the other side of the House who is shouting should have been here earlier to hear my speech. He should be ashamed to be in this House.

Doug Young cut UI and he was shown the door. The Liberals then rewarded him with $6 million for the highway between Fredericton and Moncton. That is what the Liberals did. That is what they are bragging about.

The Prime Minister was not saying during the election “You need Doug Young in Ottawa” He said “I need Doug Young in Ottawa” To do what? To make cuts like those he made in transport, employment insurance and national defence. That is what we were left with.

At home the jobs are seasonal, whereas in the rest of the country there is much more manufacturing. However, if they decided to set up some plants in our region today, I challenge my colleague opposite from Prince Edward Island to tell us whether our people are lazy and do-nothings, as our colleague Doug Young has described them. Let him stand up and tell the people back home what the Liberals said about them.

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my support for the motion moved by the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, castigating the government:

—for the catastrophic effects of its reforms to unemployment insurance; for having taken over funds destined for unemployed persons; and for its inability to adapt the unemployment insurance system to the new realities of the labour market, particularly where young people, women, and self-employed persons are concerned.

The EI reforms are proof that the Liberal government is not listening to the Canadian people. Overly stringent eligibility criteria have condemned thousands of unemployed workers to poverty.

My colleague across the way boasted that now a woman working 14 hours in an industry qualifies for EI. But he kept quiet about the fact that fewer than 40% of workers are now eligible. That was not mentioned.

He did not mention that my predecessor, Doug Young, won the election by saying that the changes made by the Conservatives had been a disaster for New Brunswick. Today, New Brunswick's premier, Camille Thériault, says that the province lost over $125 million annually.

The Liberals proudly tell us that they do want to encourage young people to go on EI. The fact of the matter is that, instead of EI, the young people in my region are now turning to welfare, with benefits at $200 a month. That is the reality in my riding.

Countless times, I have invited the Minister of Human Resources Development to come and see our young people. He has always declined. Over and over, New Brunswick's Liberal ministers, Camille H. Thériault, Jean-Camille DeGrâce and Bernard Thériault, have denounced the federal government for taking money out of workers' pockets. They are all from the same party, all Liberals.

Overly tough EI eligibility criteria have driven thousands of workers into poverty. Fewer than 40% of this country's unemployed workers are drawing benefits right now. This means that, in April 1998, almost 780,000 unemployed workers were denied access to their own program. It is there for them, not to help the Minister of Finance pay down the debt. He has no claim on it whatsoever.

I was sorry this morning when I realized that the Liberal member from PEI still has not got the message from Atlantic Canada; he may be the next one to be shown the door, because in Nova Scotia they got rid of all the Liberals, while in New Brunswick they dumped some senior ministers such as Doug Young.

The Liberals must see the reality that prevails in the Atlantic provinces, the Gaspé Peninsula, northern Manitoba, northern Ontario and northern Alberta. They must see what is really going on in the country. We have a job problem. The government will not solve it by punishing families.

When the Liberals were canvassing during the election campaign, they did not tell people “We will make families suffer”. This is not what they said. Perhaps the members opposite who are laughing do so because they do not have in their ridings people who are starving and who shoot themselves in the head. They say we must not scare people. But this is what goes on in our ridings.

The Liberals may laugh all they want, but this is the reality they created in this country. They took a measure which they had opposed when the Conservatives were in office. Indeed, when the Conservatives formed the government, the Liberals were telling Canadians from coast to coast that all these changes to the employment insurance program would be disastrous for workers. Now, they have the nerve to come and tell the public “We are lowering the debt”.

The member referred to the 400,000 people who got help, but there are 780,000 who no longer qualify. How can he have the nerve to rise in this House and say such things? This is absolutely shameful.

Some workers are being told “We will take money out of your contributions so that when you do not have a job, you can get one”. Then, there are employers who fire employees for absolutely no reason and these employees do not qualify for employment insurance even though they have contributed for years. How can the hon. member claim that this is a good program?

How can the Liberal member from Prince Edward Island, in Atlantic Canada, dare talk the way he did this morning? This is truly shameful. He should pack his things and go home. I am convinced he will when the next election is held. People in Atlantic Canada and in Kapuskasing who elected Liberals will not forget. Their problems are the same. Nobody is begging not to work.

In my own area, companies that set up shop and needed, say, 200 workers got thousands of applications. How can the government turn around and suggest employment insurance makes people dependent? How dare it say things like that?

It really is a shame that the government should take the workers' money through the back door to pay down the debt. It should be ashamed to use their money to balance the budget. This is shameful. And the only thing our Reform Party friends can think of is lowering the contributions.

I have never seen workers take to the streets to demand lower contributions. But I did see workers, unemployed people along with priests and bishops in the streets condemning the federal government because what it is doing is wrong. I did see the whole community in the streets during the election campaign, on May 2, 1997, when 5,000 people stood in front of the UI office in Bathurst with priests and bishops with them.

We even had priests telling the faithful in their churches they should participate in these demonstrations because it was their duty and our families are suffering. These demonstrations did occur. What the federal government is doing with the employment insurance is shameful and totally unacceptable. And then it has the gall to tell us the opposition is short of ideas and is not talking about jobs.

I keep talking about jobs every day. I keep telling the federal government, which is responsible for this, that we should keep our fish and process and reprocess it ourselves. I keep saying that we should process and reprocess our wood locally. Every day I say that we should process and reprocess our blueberries, to make jams or other products.

As long as I am in this House, I will not accept without raising my voice that the government should steal money from workers to pay for the national debt and to balance the budget. I will never do so. I challenge any Liberal member in this House to stand and say how nice the government is toward workers. This is a real shame.

The Liberals do not even deserve to be here. They were elected by human beings to whom they cause hardship every day: women, children, fathers, entire families are suffering. The Liberals should be ashamed and should not even stand to ask questions, because they have doomed Canadians to poverty. This is what they have done. My colleague from Prince Edward Island should be ashamed of the way he talked today. He certainly does not know where his roots are.

[Supply, June 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is too bad my question has to be short because I could say a lot on this subject. My colleague spoke about Quebec separating, but I can guarantee one thing: New Brunswick has no plans to separate, but it does have problems.

The member speaks of part time employees working 14 hours. How does he explain the fact that fewer than 40% of workers qualify for employment insurance? All the others were cut off employment insurance, because of the government.

I will close on this question. How does he explain that, before the election, his government said that changes to employment insurance would spell disaster for New Brunswick and, now that it is in power, it has made them?

[Employment Insurance, May 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance knows very well that this money belongs to the country's workers.

Fewer than 40% of the unemployed are receiving employment insurance benefits, while the government takes their money. The deficit was reduced on the backs of families that have a hard time putting food on the table.

Is the Minister of Finance proud of having reduced the deficit on the backs of those most disadvantaged?

[Employment Insurance, May 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, around 1991 the federal government ceased its contribution to the EI fund. Yesterday the Minister of Finance admitted he has spent the employment insurance surplus.

My question to the Minister of Finance is very simple. To whom belongs the surplus in the employment insurance fund?

[Employment Insurance, May 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the employment insurance program belongs to the workers of this country. The surplus currently amounts to $17 billion.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Does he agree with me that this $17 billion surplus is, in fact, money stolen from the workers?

[Employment Insurance, May 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Human Resources Development said that he traveled across the country.

I do not think the United States is part of Canada, unless the minister went to Liberal golf clubs. If he had met people affected by the changes to the employment insurance program, he would not be indifferent to their plight.

Is the minister prepared to come with me to visit the regions affected by the employment insurance policy? Is he prepared to listen to the unemployed who are in difficulty?

[National Head Start Program, May 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to indicate my support of Motion M-261, presented by the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I would like to draw particular attention to his proactive action in proposing a preventive solution to crime.

Motion M-261 is composed of three elements. First, that the government should develop, along with their provincial counterparts, a comprehensive National Head Start Program for children in their first eight years of life. Then, that they should ensure that this integrated program involves both hospitals and schools, and is modelled on the experiences of the Moncton Head Start Program, Hawaii Head Start Program, and PERRY Pre-School Program. Finally, the government should ensure that the program is implemented by the year 2000.

Motion M-261 is a good idea, because it addresses the fundamental causes of crime and prevents criminal behaviour in later life. This government's strategy toward crime involves reacting once a crime has been committed. We spend millions of dollars on the criminal justice system processing offenders through the court and prison systems. This approach to the problem is very costly in both financial and personal terms. Anyone who has been the victim of a crime can say that the effects linger long after the actual incident.

If we are really concerned about victims' rights, we should work at decreasing the number of crimes and this will decrease the number of victims.

The purpose of this motion is to address the fundamental needs of Canadian children at a very early age. The NDP has long recognized the importance of meeting our children's basic needs so that they may develop to their full potential with the right nutrition and the right environment. In 1989, the then NDP leader Ed Broadbent introduced a motion aimed at eliminating child poverty by the year 2000. This motion was adopted by all parties, but now in 1998 the situation has not improved, in fact it is even more critical. We must invest in our children in order to ensure a better future, with less crime.

The program this motion is suggesting is not a new one. Head start programs were introduced in Michigan, Hawaii and Moncton, New Brunswick. Hawaii's healthy start program was one of the first early intervention programs for children. It focussed on high risk families and on interventions during pregnancy. By tackling problems such as basic parenting skills, nutrition, conflict resolution and substance abuse, it was able to reduce child abuse by 99%.

The PERRY Pre-School Program in Michigan has focused on improving parenting skills, improving infant health, bettering family circumstances and promoting cognitive and social development. Assessments of this program have shown that it has reduced the adult and juvenile crime rate by almost 50%, decreased the number of teen pregnancies by 40%, and increased rates of employment and income. Long-term savings to taxpayers were substantial and, in all, amounted to six times the initial investment.

The Head Start Program in Moncton, New Brunswick, provides children of parents who are socially, emotionally or educationally disadvantaged with an environment that focuses on children's and parents' basic needs. For each dollar spent under the Head Start program, it is estimated that six are saved in social assistance services. In addition to saving money, we are preventing the considerable emotional difficulties suffered by crime victims.

We should set aside political discourse that talks about crime as though it is inevitable. A proactive approach that invests in our children not only ensures a future with less crime but it also ensures a promising future for our young people. I can think of no better investment.

Motion M-26l should go further. Federal and provincial governments should urge first nations chiefs to take part in the program, because we know that the problem of crime among aboriginals is incredible. By inviting them to join us in our efforts, I think we will be able to accomplish something.

For these reasons, I urge all my colleagues to support Motion M-261. All our children deserve a head start.

[Criminal Code, May 14th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to a matter I have raised in the past about employment insurance eligibility.

Employment insurance is in a crisis. At the moment, fewer than 40% of unemployed Canadians are receiving benefits and yet the surplus in the employment insurance fund is over $15 million.

On March 10, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development when the situation would be critical enough to cause him to act. When the percentage of those eligible for EI benefits is down to 25% or 15%? What would it take to get this government to revise its eligibility criteria for employment insurance?

The minister said he was concerned about the situation but did not understand why the proportion of unemployed people who qualified for benefits was so low. Is the government blind or simply stupid? It changes the EI eligibility criteria to make it harder to get benefits and then wonders why people do not qualify. After a year the government is wondering why people do not qualify.

I would like to repeat the minister's response. He said this:

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst would do well to start learning about his own region. The employment insurance participation rate in the Atlantic region is 75%. The participation rate in the province of New Brunswick is over 80%.

I can guarantee you that I am familiar with my region. My hon. colleague across the floor, the Minister of Human Resources Development, is not.

That is why I invited the Minister of Human Resources Development to come to Acadia. The local newspapers back home supported this, and even ran political cartoons showing the Minister of Human Resources hitchhiking his way to Acadia.

If he did get down to our area and saw the poverty in which people are living, he would not be long in noticing that his 80% figure does not exist. Absolutely not. What is more, the New Brunswick minister of human resources development, a Liberal, has called the employment insurance changes terrible, and has said that fewer people would be eligible for EI, so more would end up on welfare.

Those are the words of a Liberal, the New Brunswick minister of human resources development, and a Liberal like those members on the other side.

Last week, moreover, another Liberal, minister of intergovernmental and aboriginal affairs and acting minister of education, Bernard Thériault, said that the crisis in Acadia was the fault of the employment insurance changes. How can the minister and the government not have any social conscience toward the people of Canada?

Ours is not the only area affected. Look at Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, the Gaspé, and parts of northern Ontario. Or northern Manitoba, northern Saskatchewan. I am just back from B.C., and they had the same problem there too.

I am calling upon the government, once and for all, to examine its conscience and do the right thing for Canadians, do what Canadians want to see done. That $15 billion in the bank should go back to the people it belongs to, in other words back into the pockets of the workers.