Yvon Godin

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok.

This is precisely the problem in our country. It all started with free trade and then NAFTA. In fact, the purpose of these trade agreements was to protect what we had and to improve the situation in other countries. However, the opposite is happening. This is why, two weeks ago, we had to file complaints with Canada's labour board, because these agreements were not being complied with.

So, you can imagine what will happen with the globalization of markets. Again, we have a problem in this country, and until the government takes its responsibilities and addresses these issues, there will be hungry children in Canada. In the Atlantic region, the government is prepared to close down TAGS.

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie concerning globalization and the widening gap between the rich and the poor.

First of all, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean on his dedication to bring this very serious problem to the fore. Sometimes non conventional approaches must be taken to make oneself heard; there is nothing wrong with wrecking a little havoc to put an important message across.

The message the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean wants to send is indeed important. We are told that all G-7 nations are jealous of Canada's economic indicators, but that is to forget the cost attached to globalization.

I represent a part of the country where unemployment is frighteningly high. It is more than 22% in the Acadian peninsula. This is not just a figure, it represents entire families experiencing hardship because the economic market is impervious to human suffering. This 22% figure means that one out of every five people is looking for work but not finding any. This 22% figure reflects a kind of suffering that Canada should never tolerate.

We are living in a world in which multinationals have turned substantial profits in recent years. It is important to understand that I have nothing against companies turning a profit. It means jobs. But we must take a good look at the price to pay for this profit.

It is unacceptable for these profits to be made on the backs of workers. It is unacceptable for these profits to be used to fill someone's pockets when most Canadians cannot make ends meet. It is unacceptable that these profits are giving rise to poverty in a whole section of the population. It is unacceptable that these profits are being made at a cost to children, who are the most directly affected by this poverty. It is unacceptable that these profits are damaging society and not improving it.

Throughout the world people recognize the serious problems attached to the phenomenon of globalization. We recognize that the world market left to its own devices increases social inequality and sets countries on the road to ruin.

We talk about the race to the bottom. I do not know if we truly understand what it means. The race to the bottom means lower wages for workers. It means poor working conditions. It means that an employee cannot go to the bathroom because his supervisor controls his every move.

We must ensure that globalization benefits all Canadians. Why should company CEOs earn a million dollars in salaries when their employees are facing salary cuts or layoffs?

Over the past seven years, the gap between the rich and the poor has widened. Let us take a look at General Motors as an example. CEOs' salaries increased by 250%. Employees' salaries increased by 33%, and 25% of jobs were cut. Why are the benefits not more equitably shared?

A balance should be struck so that the profits of one do not signal the misfortune of the other. Canadians want their government to assume its responsibilities and ensure that globalization serves democracy, equality and human aspirations.

We are living in a world that wants to transfer the balance of power from the hands of elected parliamentarians like us into the hands of multinational corporations.

A reminder to my colleagues in this House. We must not hand over all our powers to the multinationals, which are interested only in their own profits. Canadians will suffer the most if we do. Our constituents will suffer in the race for profits. They will be the victims of the growing inequality.

As parliamentarians, we have a lot to contribute to putting a stop to the ever growing inequality. Government can commit to setting objectives for the reduction of unemployment.

This growing inequality is the result of government policies that refuse to help Canadians when they are at their most vulnerable.

Thousands of Canadians today are jobless. However, 64% of them are not eligible for the benefits intended for them. This situation is even more ridiculous considering the fact that there is more than $20 billion in the employment insurance fund at this moment. The gap between the rich and the poor is due in part to the fact that the government refuses to take its responsibilities and to give workers the EI benefits they have paid for.

This Parliament can honour its 1989 commitment to eliminate child poverty by the year 2000. That commitment was made thanks to the efforts of former NDP leader Ed Broadbent. Is it not sad to realize that, ten years later, we are not any closer to the desired objective?

We can do what is fair and equitable. Let us work together to make sure that this growing inequality ceases immediately. Let us work together so that all Canadians can benefit from living in a fair and equitable country.

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make this a votable motion.

[The Atlantic Groundfish Strategy, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, in the Atlantic and along the Gaspé coast there is a crisis in the fishery. The TAGS program is coming to an end. Thousands and thousands of people, including children, will suffer from the cuts in this program.

My question is for the minister of fisheries. Will the government change its mind and extend the TAGS program as Tobin is asking right now, one of your good Liberals?

[Supply, April 28th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean. He had the guts to stomp out of the House with his chair to stir up a discussion over the issue of poverty in Canada. There are children who go to school on an empty stomach.

I want to congratulate him. I hope the media will change their coverage on this issue, stop dealing with the chair incident and start talking about the poor in this country.

Here is my question for my colleague. Now that we have had free trade and NAFTA in Canada for such a long time, and now that we are leaning toward signing the MAI, does he not think we have more food banks than ever in Canada?

This is not the Royal Bank I am talking about, but food banks families have to go to because they do not have any money left to feed themselves. The EI fund has billions of dollars in surplus, but some Canadians are starving.

Could my colleague for Lac-Saint-Jean respond to this?

[Employment Insurance, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of plant workers and fishers, I thank the minister.

This government always waits until it is too late before taking action. Thanks to the Liberals' reform, 64% of the unemployed people in the country did not receive benefits in 1997. What has the government done? It has done the same thing it did in the case of the fishery, which is to say it has dragged its feet. Is it waiting for another fishery crisis?

My question is for the Prime Minister. With a surplus of close to $20 billion, is the government going to put an end to the social catastrophe it has created and review EI eligibility criteria?

[Employment Insurance, April 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, with this government's changes to EI, plant workers and fishers in New Brunswick and the Atlantic provinces no longer qualify for benefits.

This is crab fishing season and the government is taking its time coming up with a plan for the fishery. These plant workers and fishers have no income and are waiting for the government to wake up.

Is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans ready to unveil his fishery plan today, with the same agreement that was in place last year for plant workers and fishers, i.e. the solidarity fund?

[Labelling Of Toys, April 22nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, these past four days, we have heard that all parties were concerned about the tainted blood issue in Canada. Health Canada and its minister have had fingers pointed at them every day. And the issue was raised during the whole week that preceded our two week recess.

Today, three very important points were raised in the debate on Motion M-85. First, the fact that members from all political parties support this initiative proves the significance of this motion, and we can understand why that is.

At first reading, everyone spoke in favour. At second reading, corporate lobbying began and a number of members started to change their tune. Most of us here, in the House of Commons, are parents, and those who are not all know children they care about. This motion touches a chord in us as parents and adults who want to keep children out of harm's way.

I have three daughters and I can tell you that, I would have wanted to know that there was a risk that some of the toys I bought them when they were babies could cause cancer, liver damage and infertility, had it been possible at the time.

That is the problem with phthalates in plastic toys. We cannot tell which toys contain this chemical substance. This means that parents who buy a soother or a teething ring are playing Russian roulette with their children's health.

Let me outline the studies conducted internationally, which show how important it is to label toys containing phthalates. Phthalates are chemical agents used to make plastic more pliable. They are largely used in the manufacturing of pacifiers, teething rings and other flexible plastic toys.

Studies undertaken by the Danish government show that phthalates can be released when children bite into plastic toys. Swedish studies on rats show a correlation between the ingestion of phthalates and the onset of leukaemia, infertility and organ anomalies.

Also, a study carried out by the European Union concluded that the security issue raised by the phthalates known as DINP, DNOP and DEHP is cause for concern.

This debate also showed that members of the House of Commons are not the only ones concerned about the use of phthalates in plastic toys. In Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Argentina, Spain, Belgium, Germany and Italy, toy manufacturers and store chains have withdrawn toys containing phthalates.

I do not have much time left, but I would like to sound a warning. There are problems with contaminated blood and if members vote against this motion, I would not want to see any of our children dying because of this three years from now. I am only asking that the label advise Canadian parents what they are buying, just as it indicates the content of carpets or other products.

If we cannot do this for our children, we should just pack it in and go home.

[Devco, April 3rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the situation in Cape Breton is becoming desperate. Today more layoffs were announced at the Cape Breton Development Corporation in addition to the more than 500 men who are already off the job.

The government says there is no Devco without Phalen, so Devco is now on a 15 month plan.

This government denied the 15 month plan existed and it denied that the cabinet memo existed.

Why will the government not be honest with Cape Bretoners and tell them that, yes, the government has failed to make Devco commercially viable and is now in the process of pulling the plug on industrial Cape Breton?

Honestly, that is all we are looking for. Is that too much for the people of Cape Breton to ask?

[National Defence, April 1st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last week the employees of CFB Gagetown met with various levels of government to express their concern regarding the proposed privatization of Gagetown base. Today at noon these employees had a day of mourning to protest the privatization of Goose Bay base, the job loss and the reduction of wages that came with it.

Will the Prime Minister stand up for the civilian workers of the armed forces and stop this and any other further privatization immediately?