Yvon Godin

[Bank Act, May 13th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise in response to the reply provided by the Minister of Transport on February 24 to my question on the toll highway in New Brunswick.

The Trans-Canada Highway between Moncton and Fredericton was built with Canadian taxpayers' money. The federal government joined New Brunswick to fund the construction of that highway.

But at the last minute, the New Brunswick government played behind the back of the residents of that province and reached an agreement with Maritime Road Development Corporation. This agreement creates a number of problems. First, New Brunswick residents have already paid for the highway, through taxes. To collect a toll from those who travel from one city to another violates people's right to move freely.

The tolls collected may not be a problem for someone like Doug Young, but they represent several hundreds of dollars every year for those who travel from Moncton to Fredericton a number of times every week.

The agreement also poses a problem in that the negotiations with Maritime Road Development Corporation were conducted behind closed doors. I realize it is common practice for the Liberals to do things behind the back of Canadians, but this must stop.

Let us not forget that the person behind these negotiations is Doug Young, the former Liberal Minister of Transport. Mr. Young is now getting rich at the expense of the residents of New Brunswick.

Enough is enough. Canadians are sick and tired of seeing patronage everywhere they look. They are sick and tired of seeing that their elected officials are only looking after their friends' interests instead of protecting the interests of Canadians. Awarding a contract to a former minister of one's own party and helping him get rich is not only deplorable, but is clearly a conflict of interest.

Canada's highways should never be subject to tolls, particularly not to help private contractors get rich. The situation was best described by the mayor of Salisbury, Ruth Jackson, who said “Setting tolls on any section of the Trans-Canada Highway is an abuse of the trust of Canadians, because it deprives them of a unified transportation network from coast to coast. Any toll road, whether provincial or private, must be completely separate from the Trans-Canada Highway. If such tolls are set up, any commercial haulage in the region east of Moncton will be deprived of the access to the national highway network”.

Let us listen to Canadians and do away with the idea of toll highways.

[Mackenzie-Papineau Battalion, May 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in response to the reply given on March 26, 1998, by the Secretary of State for International Financial Institutions to my question on employment insurance.

I had asked why the federal government was refusing to use the surplus in the employment insurance fund to help all the unemployed from coast to coast. Right now, fewer than 40% of unemployed workers are receiving EI benefits. This is all the more serious when one realizes that the surplus in the employment insurance fund is up around $15 billion.

Why is this government allowing the surplus in the employment insurance fund to mount up when people throughout the country are suffering because of the changes to EI eligibility criteria? It is often forgotten where this surplus comes from. It comes from the workers and employers of this country who pay EI premiums.

As the program's name indicates, this is insurance for the difficult times when one loses one's job. Everyone hopes not to have to turn to this insurance, but the nature of work being what it is today, it is sometimes unavoidable.

Does this government not acknowledge that more than 60% of unemployed people do not qualify for insurance? They are not entitled to their own money. Not because the government lacks money, either, as there is a surplus of $15 billion in the fund. It is hard to understand why the government refuses to act on this serious matter.

Yesterday, the National Council on Welfare announced that child poverty was at its highest in 17 years. Their report emphasized the direct link between increased poverty and the changes in employment insurance.

In the northeastern part of my province of New Brunswick, the unemployment rate is 23%. One person in four is trying to find a job, and finding nothing. There are thousands of families living in poverty.

It was even announced yesterday that the unemployment rate in New Brunswick was around the 13% mark. Often, the hon. members over there do not believe me when I say that people are suffering because of the changes to employment insurance. This National Council on Welfare report confirms this, in black and white.

The time to do something is now. This government must start working for the people of this country and must address the subjects of concern to all Canadians, such as the elimination of poverty, job creation, and a health system that meets everyone's needs.

Let us start on this right now by reviewing the employment insurance eligibility criteria. Canadians have suffered enough. With $15 billion, we can put contribution rates back to 60% and cover 70% of workers.

I did some calculations earlier. A person working 420 hours in a fish plant or who has a low paying seasonal job with a minimum salary of $7.50 an hour, for example, will receive $3,150 divided by 14 and multiplied by 55, the percentage under employment insurance. He will get $123.75 a week. Nobody can live on that. All the same, with the considerable surplus that is in the employment insurance fund, this is unacceptable.

What is the government waiting for? Do the Liberals want the poverty rate to climb? Let us change the employment insurance criteria in order to remedy—

[Canada Lands Surveyors Act, May 6th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, as the NDP critic for natural resources, I rise today in support of Bill C-31, the Canada Lands Surveyors Act.

This bill is the result of five years of consultation and development. This consultation involved several departments, including Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Indian reserves and lands that have been surrendered, land claims, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, offshore regions, Heritage Canada, Parks Canada, Natural Resources Canada and the divisions responsible for petroleum, gas and subsoil and offshore mineral rights.

This legislation is required because of existing gaps in the complaints and discipline procedure. It is also required to ensure that complaints are handled fairly and properly.

This bill concerns surveyors working on Dominion lands, that is, lands in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, aboriginal lands, national parks and offshore areas.

This bill will transfer to the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors responsibilities with respect to the granting of commissions, regulations and disciplinary measures applicable to lands surveyors of Canada. Until now, these functions came under the surveyor general at Natural Resources Canada.

This will give Canada lands surveyors more voice in their own affairs. They will be able to elect some members of the council which will be responsible for running the association.

Currently it is the Minister of Natural Resources acting through the governor in council who appoints members of the board of examiners.

However, I have concern regarding certain sections of this bill. Section 12(1) stipulates:

1. (1) The president and vice-president of the association shall be appointed or elected in accordance with the bylaws.

I believe it is important that these two positions be filled by the people elected by the membership. The positions of president and vice-president are key positions that will determine the direction the association will take.

For these reasons it is only logical that the membership determines who will run the association.

It is important to note that this idea of self-regulation is not new. Provincial surveyors are all regulated by provincial associations. The proposed change reflects what has already been implemented in 10 provincial jurisdictions. In my province of New Brunswick, the surveyors' association was established in 1954. As we can see, it works for the public and for surveyors.

Reforms such as this one often imply a loss of jobs in a government department. This is one of those rare situations where self-regulation does not involve any layoffs.

The fact that no one is directly responsible for managing the complaint and discipline processes shows how necessary this legislation is. Surveyors must be accountable for their actions to those who make use of their services.

This self-regulation process also has its limits. Even though some responsibilities are transferred, the Minister of Natural Resources reserves the right to intervene if he is of the opinion that the association is not fulfilling its mandate.

I talked to surveyors in my riding, and they assured me that their interests will be adequately served by the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors. They referred to the New Brunswick surveyors association as an example of a self-regulatory body that works well. It is important that we listen to these people. After all, they are the ones who will be most affected by the changes.

Finally, the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors will be able to fulfil a role which, until now, had been completely ignored by the Department of Natural Resources. Since the association is made up of surveyors, it will be able to design and maintain proper training for its members.

We all know how important it is to see that every group provides training for its members and ensures the renewal of its workforce. This legislation allows the Association of Canada Lands Surveyors to take over continuing education, to ensure that its members get the best possible training.

The only adverse effect of this bill seems to be the increase in fees for permits and liability insurance. This increase will have to be borne by the surveyors, which means they will be passed on to the consumers.

Except for this minor reservation, we should see pass Bill C-31 immediately. Canada's surveyors have waited five years for this legislation. The time has come to act.

[Employment Insurance, May 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, more than 700 fish plant workers in the Acadian peninsula are out of work after three processing plants closed down.

This year, crab quotas were lower, which meant fewer weeks of work. Entire communities are plunged into poverty, with no income. The economic and social effects are felt everywhere.>

Will the Minister of Human Resources Development show a little compassion and develop an emergency program to give these workers living in poverty access to employment insurance?

[Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government's Atlantic groundfish strategy is a failure.

Yesterday, thousands of fisheries workers took to the street to denounce this government's management of the program. The minister said he would be compassionate. However, according to another one of his department's internal reports, the government's response is to let Canadians starve to death to force them to relocate.

My question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. When will you stand up and defend—

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 30th, 1998]

It is very hard to be nice when you know what is going on, when there is a guy like Doug Young. Our people are suffering and he is getting millions of dollars from the taxpayers. It is pretty hard to be nice to your government. The people of New Brunswick know that. The people of this country should know that it is pretty hard to be nice to your government when there are all these expenses and kids are going to school with no food in their stomachs. It is pretty hard to be nice. It is pretty hard to be nice to that party. Just look what it has been doing to the Atlantic region. It was not without reason that they voted in the NDP in Nova Scotia's last election.

I tell all Canadians today that the government can say it worries or the people can say they worry about the NDP because it spends too much. The NDP has never been in power as a national party in this country. This country is in debt like we have never seen and it is not the NDP that did it.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.

I am sure we could put this money to good use. There is however one point on which I disagree. If I were in office, you can be sure I would not use this money for patronage purposes as the Liberals do in our region and I would not be buying votes as they do on a daily basis. Perhaps that is the problem. They have done so in the past and they still do.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. It is always nice to get praise in the House. I appreciate his comments.

I explained that there are major problems in the Atlantic provinces. I understand what Newfoundlanders are going through. Just this morning, I received calls from people back home who told me that three fish processing plants would not reopen.

We talked about groundfish, but we should also mention crab, for which quotas are down to 12,000 metric tons. Two years ago, these quotas were set at 20,000 metric tons. Can you imagine the difference in the amount of work when quotas suddenly drop from 20,000 to 12,000 metric tons? It is almost a 50% drop from two years ago. This means that the crab industry alone is already experiencing twice as many problems.

The same goes for the lobster industry. In past years, quotas were set. In fact, they were not quotas but total allowable catches. Some lobster fishers could catch 20,000 or 25,000 pounds of lobster. Today, they harvest about 6,000 or 7,000 pounds. It is not easy.

This is why I say that the fisheries minister should get involved. In 1997, I issued a challenge to the other side of the House, and I was prepared to get involved. I suggested that the federal government come to our region, with people who could make decisions, and organize a conference with members of Parliament, the federal and provincial fisheries ministers, fishers, and plant workers and owners, to try to come up with ideas and solutions together. We can sit down, discuss intelligently and figure out what we can do for our community.

Whether it is in Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal, people enjoy going out to eat some nice fish or lobster, but it takes fishers to catch that fish or lobster. It takes plant workers to process it. Lobster and crab taste so good, but it takes people to harvest them.

That is why I say something can be done. I have a number of suggestions regarding, for instance, secondary and tertiary processing. Why take our fish and ship it abroad without first turning it into a finished product? The government keeps saying that it is not its responsibility to create jobs; it is however its responsibility to develop the infrastructure required to do so. I think that together we can succeed.

This is unfortunate for the people in our regions. I have meetings scheduled for the weekend with people in my region to discuss the three fish plants that had to close down and try to find solutions. Hopefully, the answer will not be the one the fisheries minister gave us last week when he said that the fisheries plan would be forthcoming.

Did he check with the people in Montreal, Quebec City, Rivière-du-Loup, Edmundston or Bathurst? In any case, he has not hit the Acadian peninsula yet. He should give us our fisheries plan so that we can put our people to work, because they want to work. He should take positive action instead of giving answers that do not make any sense.

[Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, April 30th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express the support of the New Democratic Party for Bill C-27, which amends the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act in order to implement the Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea relating to the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks, which straddle the 200-mile zone, and are also known as straddling fish stocks.

The bill amends Canadian legislation to enable Canada to ratify the United Nations agreement on the conservation and management of stocks of straddling fish and highly migratory fish.

The agreement was adopted by consensus on August 5, 1995 at the UN conference in New York. It is important because it will help to limit overfishing on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and allow the signatories to formulate new provisions for control on the high seas. It will also enable authorities to monitor the signatories' intervention with foreign vessels outside their coastal zones.

Straddling fish are found on both sides of national fishing limits. They also cross them as they migrate, in the case of flounder and turbot.

The highly migratory fish, such as tuna and swordfish, also travel in the high seas and sometimes move through the exclusive economic zone of coastal states.

This bill is important because it will help protect both types of fish stocks, which have been the focus of unregulated overfishing in the high seas. Overfishing is a problem in a number of places around the world, as on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, beyond the Canadian 200-mile limit.

Overfishing by foreign vessels outside and inside the 200-mile limit was a factor in the decline of straddling stocks of cod, flounder and turbot in the northwest Atlantic. Stock declines have had a very serious impact on the economy of coastal villages in Canada and forced thousands of fishers and plant workers onto unemployment.

The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which came into force in 1994, clearly authorizes coastal states, that is, those that border on the ocean, to have exclusive fisheries management jurisdiction up to 200 miles, or 370.4 kilometres, off their coast.

However, the states' legal rights and obligations with respect to straddling and highly migratory fish stocks are not clear. The agreement fills this gap left in the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The agreement will come into force once 30 states have ratified it or acceded to it. So far, it has been signed by 59 states and ratified by 15, including the United States, Russia and Norway. Canada will be in a position to ratify the agreement once this legislation is passed.

Let us hope that the new legal framework for high sea fisheries will include control measures and effectively protect straddling and highly migratory fish stocks against overfishing on high seas. Conservation and management measures would go a long way to ensure the viability of this critical food source for future generations.

This bill is required to protect fish stocks outside the 200 mile zone against overfishing. I wonder why the Canadian government took so long to introduce a bill providing for the ratification of the agreement. I should not be surprised, though, since this government is one that drags its feet, and that has become a habit in the fisheries issue.

Take the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act and the Canada Shipping Act for instance. I just love that name, it sounds so convincing, just like campaign promises. If I support this recommendation, I do so mainly in the interests of the people of the Atlantic provinces, for it is obvious where the old act led us, into a fisheries crisis, as far as turbot and Atlantic groundfish, and other species, are concerned.

That crisis has cost the government and the industry thousands of dollars. When the cod fishery was shut down, we saw how the Canadian public paid for it in the loss of economic side-benefits. Canada was one of the biggest cod exporters in the world. Today, with the small amount of cod we can find along the coasts, the industry is having trouble getting back into the market. Lacking cod, buyers have opted for other accessible species from anywhere in the world, and not specifically Canada.

This represents a big loss for Canada. The hope that some day this fishery will become accessible and profitable is still both vague and far distant. In my region, it is distressing to see how many boats are tied up at wharves. People's morale is at rock bottom. Their boats end up just rotting away where they are moored. Is this normal? No, especially not in a coastal region such as mine.

We have known prosperity, but now we have fallen into poverty, deep poverty.

The crisis has had many consequences, the worst of which is the human cost, the lives devastated by the fisheries crisis. In a coastal area like mine, fish is the principal resource, and one which provides the local people with seasonal employment.

For the majority of the fish plant workers, cod is what puts their bread on the table. Today, however, they have no more jobs. So, the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy was created. The cod fisheries have not opened up again, yet TAGS is to end in August.

What will people do? Ask yourself that question. With no work and no income, the future looks bleak. I wonder why, given that, under the five-year agreement, the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy was to end in April of 1999. The government then moved that date up to April 1998.

Again, the government did not keep its promises. In an attempt to appease the public, it changed the date to August 1998. Since the House does not sit in August, we will not be able to rise and to criticize the government for the problems in the Atlantic provinces. In August, 26,000 Newfoundlanders and thousands of people in New Brunswick will be out on the street. In May, 3,000 Newfoundlanders will no longer be eligible for the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, nor will half of the New Brunswickers now benefiting from it. This is unacceptable.

We are not asking the government to throw money at the problem. We are saying that it must find a strategy to help people in the Atlantic region. It cannot leave these people high and dry.

There is an unpublished report suggesting that Atlantic residents should move. Surprise, surprise, I would never make such a recommendation. We want to stay in the Atlantic region. We have no intention of moving because of anyone. We must sit down together in this House and find solutions for Atlantic residents.

These people are not responsible for the mistake made by senior public servants, according to the report submitted by the parliamentarians who traveled to the Atlantic region. That committee was made up of Liberals, Reformers, Conservatives and New Democrats. They were unanimous in saying that fisheries had not been properly managed in the Atlantic region. Today, the government is turning around and abandoning these people. This is unacceptable.

Two days ago, I talked to fishers in Newfoundland who told me that if the program is eliminated and not replaced by another one, they would take their boats and go back out to sea. They will not have any choice. The situation will not change if the government shirks its responsibilities.

The former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Brian Tobin, who was instrumental in the establishment of the Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, signed letters with the premiers of New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. These premiers are asking the federal government to sit down with them and find a solution for Atlantic fisheries, for the 26,000 people who will be out on the street in August, which is most regrettable.

Again today, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is dragging his feet.

The people from our region, the people in New Brunswick, the Gaspé and zone 12, have their boats ready to head out to sea. The fish plants are set to open and employees have run out of EI. Once again, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is dragging his feet, at the expense of workers and ordinary folk. Today, he wonders why a member rises in the House and is frustrated.

I am expressing the frustration of the Atlantic provinces. I am expressing the frustration of people from my region. I am expressing the frustration of families who have nothing left to eat, nothing left to put on the table. They cannot survive on welfare. It is the lives of these people that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans holds in his hands. He could have announced the fishing plan last week. Once again, it is not just the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans' senior officials who are dragging their feet, but the minister himself.

Last week, I rose in the House to ask if he was going to establish a fishing plan for people in my region, and all he could think of to say was that it was coming. How far has the fishing plan got? Has it reached Montreal, Quebec City, Rivière-du-Loup, Edmundston? We are sure looking forward to seeing it get as far as Caraquet, I can tell you.

What is the government's role with respect to the present state of the fishery? What has it done wrong? It is true that the government has taken decisions such as the one to create the Fisheries Resource Conservation Council, the FRCC. When the council was created, the government reassured the industry that it would serve as a consultant to the fishery and an adviser to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.

Since then, the FRCC is trying to fulfil its mandate through consultations. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans receives advice from it, but is in no way implementing or considering it.

What is the point of consulting and not considering the advice and information received? The government is using initiatives such as this one to avoid reality and sidestep its responsibilities because, ultimately, it is accountable to the Canadian public. It should stop looking out for its own interests.

The problems have not gone away. That is why the government has now decided to use words like protection, conservation and processing.

This is why the government should do its job. It should take our fish and create a secondary and tertiary processing industry. It should help businesses to take our resource and develop other products from it for the good of our own people.

This is a truly important industry for our people. We can almost think of everyone on the Acadian peninsula as one people, or those along the Newfoundland coast, where fish could be caught and a secondary and tertiary processing industry developed, to create jobs.

In the Atlantic region, we would like to see those fine words translated into action, since they suit the fisheries industry well. People just want to work, and they see fishing as a way to do so.

What does resource protection mean? At what price, and which country will pay that price? Before providing work for people elsewhere, we should be providing jobs for the people here, for Canadians. Can the government impose quotas on the fishing industry and then say to the foreign fleet “Welcome, just help yourselves”? Meanwhile, our people here are going hungry, and there is not much on their plates they can help themselves to, believe me.

Let us stop for a minute and look at the fisheries situation. What we want is to see it managed, to see the fishery managed for the benefit of the Canadian public.

The crisis with the fisheries was not the only one. There is also the employment insurance crisis. The EI fund has $14 billion in it. Shameful, and yet the government is shirking its responsibilities toward the entire Atlantic region and the problems of the fisheries, which are of its own doing, since it allowed foreigners to come and take our fish, while ignoring the people in our own country.

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I wonder why my colleague from Ottawa-Centre is getting so upset. He does not need to get angry. He looks mighty serious and angry. I want to throw the ball back into his court. When I look at where the hon. member for Ottawa Centre is coming from, I understand why he is so vigorously defending the interests of the government. I am sure that he does not have the same problem in Ottawa Centre that we have in Acadie—Bathurst, which is why my predecessor, Doug Young, was shown the door.

I invite my colleague opposite to visit Newfoundland, since his government wants to abolish the TAGS program. He does not need to go outside the country to see people living in poverty and children going hungry.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this and the fact that more and more people in Atlantic Canada and in downtown Montreal can be seen begging in the streets. Even here in Ottawa, there are people begging, which we never used to see before. The same thing goes for Vancouver. This is the real problem.

It started with the Free Trade Agreement, then NAFTA and now the MIA. This is where the problem lies. We cannot bury our heads in the sand, we have to look up and see what is going on in our own country.