Yvon Godin

[The Budget, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. He says he does not want to deal with the problem of health. He wants to speak of education. He is interested in education.

Is his reluctance to speak of the problem of health in Canada related to the fact that, before the budget, Canadians had clearly called for money to be put into that program? In New Brunswick this week the nurses association said that nurses were suffering from burnout. There is no money available in the health system for the administrators.

Yesterday, New Brunswick Minister of Health, Dr. Russell King, attacked the Liberal budget. The Newfoundland minister attacked the Liberal budget. You have missed the boat. In my opinion, you did not listen to Canadians.

Why do you not want to talk about it? Are you ashamed? Is that the problem?

[Trans-Canada Highway, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.

New Brunswickers have already paid for this road through their taxes. Now they will have to pay even more to line the pockets of Doug Young and his friends. Doug Young was thrown out on June 2 of last year, and yet he has managed to sneak back in through the back door. Enough is enough.

Will the government finally put an end to patronage and get rid of the idea of a toll highway for once and for all?

[Poverty, February 18th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has just been saying that the labour movement ought to be involved throughout the entire process, so as to create youth employment.

I am pleased to hear that, on the other side of this House, the Liberals realize that there is a labour movement here in Canada, that they are prepared to talk to them, unlike the former Minister of Human Resources Development, who said that if he met the president of the CLC in the desert after wandering about for 2 weeks, he would not even drink a glass of water with him.

At last they are beginning to acknowledge that there is room for the labour movement, that it can discuss with government and employers to create employment.

Not long ago, I was talking with the people at a food bank in my riding. They told me “It would be nice if they came to visit, came to see how well we are operating. Even though there is nothing to get excited about, as the fact we exist is no reason to rejoice”.

There is no reason to rejoice when we have food banks just about on every corner. There is nothing to rejoice about when, in the past, a person could walk the streets of Montreal and not see all those people—

[Supply, February 18th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question, but first of all I would like to make just a few comments.

It seems that the parties, whether Progressive Conservative or Liberal, are totally forgetting what has been going on in this country.

We need to look at what has been going on in this country and at why we have lost jobs. Many jobs have been lost because of technology.

I have used the example of the Brunswick mine in comments I have made here in the House before. It used to have 1,400 employees and produce 8,000 tonnes daily. Today, with 800 employees, it can produce 10,000 tonnes daily.

Many jobs have been lost in the Atlantic region because of the problems with the fisheries. In Newfoundland, fish plant closures have done away with many jobs.

My colleague from the Conservative Party who has just spoken cannot bring himself to say that free trade is responsible for the loss of many jobs. Perhaps if we quit giving our jobs to the Americans, Canadians would have work too.

[Employment Insurance, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I invite the minister to come to Acadia to see what is happening in the fishery. Perhaps he would then be able to understand.

The report says it is too early to assess the impact of EI changes. I would like the Minister of Human Resources Development to tell the thousands of seasonal workers who are suffering that there is insufficient data to assess the situation. Are the reality and the facts not enough?

Is the government prepared to revise the criteria governing eligibility and duration of benefits so that they are more consistent with the needs of seasonal workers?

[Employment Insurance, February 16th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The number of unemployed workers eligible for EI has dropped from 87% in 1989 to less than 40% today. The EI commission's first report indicates that the intention of changes was not to reduce the number of claimants.

That being the case, is the minister prepared to revise the eligibility criteria immediately?

[European Common Market, February 16th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise in this House today in support of Motion M-181 put forward by my hon. colleague from South Shore.

Motion M-181 suggests that the government should instigate a study of non-tariff trade barriers to the European Common Market, specifically the ban by the ECM of Canadian forest products that have bark or needles attached.

The Canadian forest industry is one of the most dynamic industries in the country. It generates $58.7 billion in revenues every year. In addition, Canada is the largest exporter of forest products in the world, with $38.3 billion in exports in 1996. This industry is also important in that it contributes both directly and indirectly to the creation of 842,000 jobs across the country. It is from this job creation perspective that I will argue the importance of the study suggested by my hon. colleague from South Shore.

The non-tariff trade barriers imposed by the European Union on Canadian lumber have dubious origins. Having to kiln-dry Canadian pine wood, as required, to kill potential bugs costs the Canadian industry $780 million.

Steam treatment of wood is an expensive process affecting Canada's competitiveness with respect to forest products. I consider that imposing such criteria is necessary when there is a high probability that some bugs will be transmitted from one country to another. However, there does not seem to be a high probability of transmission in this particular case.

The hon. member for South Shore emphasized the absence of an international consensus about how the said bug is transmitted.

Moreover, a Canadian study shows that 1,157 shipments of Canadian forest products were totally free of pinewood nematoda. This means there is only a 0.3% probability of finding this parasite in Canadian shipments.

Given that international experts are unable to reach a consensus, and given the low probability of finding pinewood nematoda in Canadian shipments, the Canadian government must review the issue. One of the objectives of the Canadian Forestry Service is the promotion of international trade and investment. Protecting Canadian interests is an integral part of this mandate.

The study proposed in the motion would allow us to reassess the scientific findings in this case and eliminate the confusion that seems to prevail within the international community. The study is all the more important since it could lead the European Community to reconsider its criteria on kiln drying for Canadian forest products. This could, in turn, promote job creation in Canada, to meet the renewed demand from the European Union.

We often talk about the monetary costs of non-tariff barriers, but we tend to forget that these barriers also impede job creation. The Canadian labour force in the logging industry is extremely skilled.

In my riding of Acadie—Bathurst, logging is vital to the region's economic prosperity. Unwarranted non-tariff trade barriers affect not only logging companies, but also the workers of these companies, who find themselves out of work when the European market becomes less accessible.

As legislators, we have a responsibility to see that any non-tariff barrier that adversely affects the logging industry is carefully reviewed, to make sure that the resulting loss of jobs is absolutely justified.

Perhaps the study will show that the criteria imposed by the European Community are fully justified. However, given the current lack of consensus on pinewood nematoda, we must protect the interests of Canadians and take a very close look at the issue.

[Final Offer Arbitration In Respect Of West Coast Ports Operations Act, February 10th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, on October 22, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development whether the Liberal government was going to restore hope to young Canadians by making access to post-secondary education a priority.

His response was that he was going to give students as many options as possible. The only options he appears to be offering our young people are exorbitant fees and a future fraught with insecurity.

This government has not done enough for our young people. Over the past four years, all Canadians have suffered from the Liberals cuts. Among those most heavily affected by these unfeeling Liberal measures were young Canadians, with an average debt load of $25,000 at the end of their post-secondary education. As if these unbelievable debts were not enough, they find themselves jobless, with an unemployment rate as high as 16.5%.

Since the government introduced its youth employment strategy, there are 48,300 more young people unemployed. Clearly the Liberals have missed the boat as far as young Canadians are concerned.

The situation is so critical that 78% of young Quebeckers believe that poverty has increased in our society. The majority of them even think that the worse is yet to come. This government has taken away from our young people the most important thing they need to succeed: hope.

Moreover, the problem of inequality in our society is growing every day. A minority of people benefit from the new global economy, whereas most of us live in insecurity. This insecurity is most deeply felt by our young people. High unemployment, an education system accessible only to the rich, a lack of hope and a deep feeling of insecurity, that is what the Liberals have given our young people.

Young Canadians are our future. An investment in our young people would mean a bright future for all Canadians. That is why we need to put more money into the post-secondary education system. More money for post-secondary education means a better education for our young people and a system that would be accessible to all.

Last week, I met with students in New Brunswick. They are deeply concerned about the exodus of our young people in Atlantic Canada who go west because they cannot find jobs in their region. The enormous debt load is also one of their main concerns, as it is for everybody.

This government must start listening to young Canadians and respond to their expectations and concerns. Government programs, such as the millennium scholarship fund, must be there to help those who need them. But that is not enough. The government must help all young Canadians by increasing transfers to the provinces, to ensure that tuition fees stay at a reasonable level.

The actions of the Liberal government have demonstrated that it is more concerned with corporate interests than with the future of our young people. We need a government that will make young Canadians its priority, that will invest in their future by investing in our post-secondary education system.

The Liberal government must start working for all Canadians to build a secure future for our young people and for the whole country.

[Petitions, February 10th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition in which citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House to a fundamental flaw in the MAI in so far as it seeks to protect the right of investors without seeking similar protection for workers through binding core labour standards. They also point out that the MAI is anti-democratic in so far as it will be binding for 20 years and ties the hands of several Parliaments and future governments.

The petitioners call on Parliament to reject the current framework of MAI negotiations and instruct the government to seek an entirely different agreement by which the world might achieve a rules based global trading regime that protects workers, the environment and the ability of government to act in the public interest.

[Ice Storm 1998, February 4th, 1998]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are here this evening to talk about the hardships experienced by residents of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick during the terrible ice storm that hit in January. We are here to pay tribute to the millions of Canadians who were without power for several days or even weeks and, in some cases, for over a month.

This evening we heard several stories of courage displayed by storm victims, that is men, women and children who, in difficult circumstances, showed such great human qualities as sharing, compassion and patience. It is often said that we now live in an individualistic society where personal interests take precedence over collective ones. It was clearly not the case during the ice storm.

Thousands of Canadians united their efforts to ease the suffering of residents of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick whose lives were totally disrupted by the terrible storm. We witnessed tremendous efforts in the communities that were affected. People came from neighbouring cities and provinces to prepare meals, share food, lend generators or donate firewood. This generosity reflects the very best in what we think of as Canadian values.

In my riding of Acadie—Bathurst, hundreds of volunteers co-ordinated their efforts to send money, wood, food and other resources to storm victims. Thanks to the co-ordination provided by the municipalities and community groups, these resources got to those communities where they were needed in no time.

I would like to thank all the people of my riding, who, like their fellow citizens across the country, have shown a great deal of caring for those in need.

A word of caution, however, about the genuine generosity shown by Canadians. Some of my colleagues in this House have used this generosity displayed for Quebeckers to raise the national unity issue. The people who gave their time, their resources and their money did not do so for political reasons; they acted out of sheer generosity. To come and colour their noble actions by playing politics is insulting.

I drove in the triangle of darkness and saw the electrical poles that had fallen in the streets, in the fields and even on houses.

Town after town, village after village, I saw the darkness so many Ontarians, Quebeckers, Nova Scotians and New Brunswickers had to face. We have never seen the likes of this crisis in Canada. Unfortunately, we were not prepared for it, and now it is our responsibility as legislators to ensure that the infrastructure is in place in the future so we may quickly react to an emergency.

In my province of New Brunswick, victims suffered longer in the dark because of jobs lost due to cuts in transfers to the provinces. Fewer workers were available to react immediately to the power loss. It is pretty straightforward. If there are fewer workers, there are fewer people to repair the damage caused by the storm.

The cutbacks at NB Power have meant that people in south New Brunswick had to wait longer in the dark. It is yet another example of how the Liberal cutbacks have hurt Canadians. Larry Calhoun, business manager for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1733, and John Cole, business manager for IBEW Local 2309, had this to say about the recent storm:

In all fairness, it wouldn't matter how many line workers were standing by; in a storm like this one it's going to take a while to get back to normal.

Now, having said that, let us say as well that there is absolutely no question that in New Brunswick, the reduced NB Power workforce resulted in citizens being left in the dark longer than would have previously been the case. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to understand this. When the lights go out, it's because power flow has been disrupted. When that happens, crews are dispatched to find the source of the problem and fix it. In a storm like this one, the problem is often a tree which has toppled onto a line. Finding that often entails driving along a road until you see it. The fewer crews you have doing the hooking, the longer it's likely going to take to find it.

With the reduction of the debt and the deficit at the top of the legislative agenda, we forget that government cuts directly affect people's lives. Our job is to find ways to improve services to consumers, to reinvest in jobs that will ensure better support in such situations.

At the provincial and municipal levels, we must develop a specific strategy to ease suffering at critical moments. The Quebec government stressed the importance of establishing a plan for emergencies. Yesterday I got a letter from a constituent suggesting such a plan. I will read you a few lines from the letter, which underscores the lack of preparedness.

She writes “They have been holding meetings for years about emergencies, but there are no generators, no place to take in people, no food reserves in a handy place, no little stoves that could be set up homes that still have fireplaces. This is all discussed within the family, because you have to think and act rapidly. You cannot know what is going to happen”.

She continues, setting out a concrete strategy to minimize people's suffering, while creating jobs at the same time. “There are people who heat with wood, but have no firewood. So many unemployed and so many people I know who have not had work for three years should have had the right to cut wood on crown lands to stockpile for use in an emergency. Those people should have had a chance to earn and to accumulate unemployment insurance stamps so that they could live too”.

That suggestion is only one of many we now need to look at. With the emergency situation lifted a bit, efforts must now be focussed on reconstruction of devastated areas. Along with these efforts, a strategy needs to be developed to ensure that we are as prepared as possible for a similar situation in future.

Canadians have shown incredible courage and generosity during this disaster. Now it is time to ensure that we do everything we can to put the necessary resources in place for a better response to this type of crisis. Canadians deserve that, at least.