Yvon Godin

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

The best thing to do would have been to invest in institutions, so that everyone would have received the same treatment and the costs would have dropped.

Once again, I am not alone in paying attention to this bill. Young people in my region are telling me very clearly that the federal government's budget does nothing for them and they do not support it. The government should be aware that the young people attending universities represent Canada's future and give them the education they need for the future and for the economy of the future. That is what we need.

Yesterday, I was at the community college in Bathurst. The first question the students asked me was “Where are we going to find jobs? How are we going to pay our tuition fees?” They are very concerned.

The government had a responsibility, and I come back to that because it is its responsibility to lower costs for Canadian students and to do the right thing once and for all. They cannot always be thinking of themselves, their patronage appointments and the millions they are giving to Doug Young. They should look at what is going on with our young people. That is much more important.

I do not support Bill C-36. I say the government should do more important things for young people, invest where it would help them, give them a chance to go to university, to study and to enter the labour market free of debt and not obliged to declare bankruptcy. What are we giving our young people? They go to university and then they go bankrupt. What a great start to life.

Let us hope there are some Liberals who will put a bug in the ear of their minister on behalf of our young Canadians.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

Students in Quebec, in Manitoba, in Ontario, or in British Columbia feel the same way. They are not happy with the budget of the Liberal government.

I think that our Prime Minister is selective when he visits universities, and perhaps chooses those attended by the wealthy. He should come and visit New Brunswick and see the reception he gets. He should come and visit an area of the country where people are living in poverty. He should come to my region and see what he is doing to our young people and how they are not helped by the 1998 federal budget.

The Liberals have the nerve to travel around the country boasting that they have done something good for Canadian students. I say that this is misleading, as only 7% of students will benefit.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

An hon. member across the way said “provincial cuts”. If these were only provincial cuts, why did the Premier of New Brunswick and both his finance and education ministers say they had to be made as a result of federal cuts? And by the way, the Liberals are still in office provincially in New Brunswick. Perhaps not for much longer, but they are still there.

At any rate, the government is telling us there is something good in store for post-secondary students starting in the year 2000. It is important for Canadians to know that things are not as good as they are made out to be. At present, university students have to spend between $25,000 and $30,000 to get the education they need to enter the labour market. The proposed changes to the tax credits might save them $3,000 but they still will not have a job at the end of the day. How are they expected to pay off their debts then?

I think what the government should have done is increase funding for educational institutions in order to reduce the cost of a university education.

Here is an example. This week, New Brunswick announced it would cost 10% more to attend university. This announcement came immediately after the federal government said it would improve its program for education and that it would benefit post-secondary students. It is obvious that university students are having a hard time. They expect to see their debt level rise to as much as $40,000 in the years to come. These young people who attend university accumulate huge debts, which they are then unable to repay.

Turning to the scholarships that the government plans to award, only 7.1% of all students in Canada will benefit. Let me give you an example. If, in the Beresford region of New Brunswick there are 100 students who want to go to university, only seven of them will get scholarships. It is the same across the country, in Vancouver or anywhere else. Therefore, not many people will benefit from these scholarships.

Moreover, these scholarships will be awarded based on merit, that is to say, they will be given to those who have good marks. They will definitely not be awarded to the poor, when we know that some students have to work at McDonald's or in other restaurants or convenience stores to earn a bit of money so they can pay off their debts.

The government really missed the boat, unless it deliberately chose to launch a big advertising campaign in Canada by saying it would give money to students, without spending that much. The numbers may seem impressive—millions of dollars for Canadian students—but once you split the money among all the regions, it does not amount to much. Again, only 7 students out of 100 will benefit.

The government has a greater responsibility than this toward our young people, because they represent the future of our country. They are the ones who will take over from us, and getting them into debt is not the right thing to do. As I said, the government has a responsibility to help these young Canadians, and it is a good investment for the future of our country.

This is why I oppose the government's budget. I oppose the way the government tried to convince Canadians that it was supportive of our young people. Our young people are not getting government support. They go to school from grade one to grade twelve, and then they have to fend for themselves. To make things worse, the rich have a better chance to get these scholarships than the poor or middle class people.

I met with students who came to my office. They told me they would be penalized if they worked, because the following year the government would deduct 80% of their earnings, thus making it impossible for them to get a student loan or scholarship.

These sorts of things have young people across Canada really worried. I have used New Brunswick as an example because that is where I come from and I had last week's example, when students from the Université de Moncton marched in the streets. University of Fredericton students did the same, to let the government know they were being poorly treated. This is what is really happening in this country.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 31st, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate on Bill C-36, but not to say that I am in favour of it, because I certainly am not.

Let me give you an example of the sort of thing that happened back home, in New Brunswick, last week. While the Liberals were boasting “Canadians are happy and so are post-secondary students”, last week, universities held a rally to let the federal government know how hard hit they have been by cuts in education.

[Disability Pensions, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, this government is treating people living with disabilities in a heartless manner. Bill C-2 will ensure that fewer and fewer Canadians receive disability pensions.

Implementation of these regressive policies will ensure that thousands of Canadians will find themselves forced to wait close to two years for a final decision on their applications for disability pension. Enough is enough.

My question is for the Prime Minister. When will this government stop taking advantage of the most vulnerable in society, and start speeding up the process for obtaining disability pensions?

[Employment Insurance, March 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when will this government start working for the people of this country and deal with issues of concern to all Canadians, such as job creation and a health system that meets everyone's needs? Does this government think that having 1.4 million unemployed people in Canada is acceptable?

My question is for the Prime Minister. Will the government keep its promise to Canadian voters to create jobs? Is it prepared to implement a full employment strategy and to set job creation targets?

[Employment Insurance, March 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, according to the estimates tabled yesterday, the employment insurance surplus will be $19.6 billion next year.

The President of the Treasury Board thinks a huge surplus is essential in case we fall upon more difficult economic times in the future. But Canadian workers, from Kamloops to Caraquet to St. John's, Newfoundland, are already going through tough times as a result of the changes to employment insurance.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Instead of letting people suffer, is the government prepared to immediately use the surplus in the employment insurance fund to help all the unemployed from coast to coast?

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, when the incident occurred, two weeks ago, I rose and said I was a proud Canadian. I said I was a proud Canadian from New Brunswick with a flag in both his Ottawa and New Brunswick offices, but that I was not proud of what the Reform Party and the Liberal Party had done, particularly when a Reform member threw the Canadian flag on the floor. I said all of that.

I am proud because the flag is close to my heart. It does not have to be displayed on my desk. I am truly proud of that. And the flag will not be thrown on the floor because I am proud of it. But I cannot be proud of the fact that, today, Parliament is spending over $1 million of Canadians' money to hear about the flag, while some children in our country go hungry because their parents are on welfare, and while 730,000 people will be forced to rely on social assistance because of the changes made to the employment insurance program. This is what we should be debating here today. We should be debating the budget, because that was the issue before the House on the day the incident occurred.

I have a question for the member opposite. Reformers claimed that the member from Quebec was still able to put her question that day. However, since oral question period lasts 45 minutes and since each member only has 35 seconds to put his or her question, is it not true that, because the proceedings were interrupted that day, some parties were prevented from asking a fourth question, as is the custom? There was an interruption which may not have had an impact on the hon. member from Quebec, but which had one on the New Democratic Party. We were entitled to a fourth question, but could not put it.

[Employment Insurance, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I will be out of order again, but I will put my supplementary and you will decide.

The parliamentary secretary is contradicting his own minister. In a letter dated March 5, the Minister of Human Resources Development wrote, and I quote: “The first control and evaluation report on the EI regime will be reviewed in detail by two parliamentary committees, the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Standing Committee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities. When they have passed on their conclusions to us, I will be very happy to discuss them with you and with all our colleagues”.

Will the parliamentary secretary listen to his minister and stop obstructing—

[Employment Insurance, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the EI changes are preventing 60% of unemployed workers from receiving benefits and this government is still refusing to take action.

On Tuesday, the human resources development committee was unable to reach a consensus regarding preparation of a report on the impact of EI changes. The parliamentary secretary refused to give his agreement.

Why does the parliamentary secretary want to keep the committee from reporting on this important issue?