Yvon Godin

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 2nd, 1998]

I will try to be brief in putting my question, Mr. Speaker.

My hon. colleague was saying that the people of Canada support the Liberals in their fight against the deficit and have joined them in that fight. I do not agree with him because they did not give Canadians any choice.

Let me give you an example. In our region, the Liberal provincial health minister personally stated that, as a result of federal transfer cuts, in New Brunswick, seniors receiving long term care in hospital who are transferred to a nursing home may end up losing their homes if they cannot come up with $38,000 a year. That is the cost involved. I call that a two-tier system too.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that his family was Liberal. After that he was a Conservative. Now he is a Reformer. Maybe he will see the light one day and become an NDP.

I went around the country and I went around the States too. I saw line-ups in the States where people were waiting six months. Those who were waiting for six months were not the rich. They were not those who had money and who could pay $10,000 for an operation. Those with all that money were not waiting six months. The poor people were waiting in the line-ups for six months because they could not afford American health care.

My colleague in the Reform Party is suggesting that we should cut taxes, that Canadians cannot pay the taxes. Reformers want us to give the poor a health care program that will be paid for from their pockets and they cannot afford to pay it. What does my colleague answer to that?

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 1997, February 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. There is talk of cuts and transfers to the provinces. Personally, I wonder where these transfers are.

Since the cuts to employment insurance, hundreds of people no longer qualify for benefits. In New Brunswick, Minister Marcelle Mersereau said she had been forced to allow welfare recipients to participate in special programs so they could accumulate enough hours to become eligible for employment insurance. So there were a number of transfers that did not really help.

If we look at what is happening in hospitals, at the health care situation, we have trouble keeping doctors. In the hospitals, we find our parents parked in corridors. That kind of thing would never have happened in the past, but it is now a common occurrence.

I can even give you an example. In the Bathurst area, in my riding, hospitals are forced to charge for parking, which used to be free, so they can afford to buy new equipment. That proves the transfers are not there. In 1979, the federal government paid 50% of hospital or health care expenditures; this figure is now down to about 15%. You have a long way to go before you can make transfer payments that could help support people in the health care field.

The question I would like to ask my colleague concerns the banks. Why is the government not making a decision today, particularly since the Minister of Finance clearly expressed his surprise at the announcement that the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal would merge? When he unexpectedly found out about it, he said, as I understand it, that he would give his approval only if the banks looked after the interests of Canadians and if no one lost their job. The banks said that they could not give such a guarantee, that some employees would lose their jobs.

How can a government like this one, which has some responsibility, allow such a merger and not take a stand right away instead of waiting until September? Is the country run by the Minister of Finance alone or by all 158 democratically elected Liberal members? Have they nothing to say on the matter, because I am sure there are people in their regions who are concerned about all these big mergers that will hurt Canadians?

It is not up to the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal to run this country. It is up to the government to do the job and to assume its responsibilities.

[Finance, December 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question, but first, I have a few comments to make.

When we look at what happened with TAGS, does it not resemble what happened with employment insurance? The governments changed direction and paid out a lot of money to companies for technological change. Once the technological changes were made, people were laid off. People got laid off, and then there was the fisheries problem.

What happened to the employment insurance of people who were laid off? They were told the government did not want to pay employment insurance benefits any more, that no one was working, that their assistance was being cut and that the problem was that they did not want to work and were lazy. That is what the Liberal government said.

Now there are not enough fish, perhaps as a result of overfishing. Today the government is changing direction and doing the same thing again. Now it says it has no money, that this is not the way to do things, that it will cut off families and children and that they will no longer be entitled to eat. It is rather irresponsible on the part of the federal government, as my colleague was saying earlier, for it to sit for four years, rather than give the money immediately, and do nothing. At the end of the four years it then says it will be cutting off aid and has nothing for them. Is the government not being irresponsible? Is my colleague prepared to support me on this?

The hon. member said earlier, and I agree with him, that we have to keep giving money so these people can put food on the table, that we then have to find a solution to the problem instead of abandoning them. That is one of my questions.

I have another quick question. I would like him to be brief too in order to answer my two questions. He came to New Brunswick. What happened to the committee, which did not invite people—

[Seasonal Workers, December 8th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Human Resources Development is aware of the fact that, because of the fisheries crisis and the nature of seasonal work, hundreds of workers do not qualify for employment insurance for lack of the requisite number of hours worked.

In many cases, these families are not eligible for welfare. As a result, they cannot afford to put bread on the table.

Did the minister sign an agreement with the provinces as he did in the past to ensure that the workers have the required number of hours worked to qualify for employment insurance so that they can have something to eat at Christmas?

[Toy Labelling, December 4th, 1997]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should enact legislation mandating toy manufacturers to label toys containing phthalates in order to allow parents to make an informed decision when buying products for their children.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise today on an issue that is of great importance at this time of the year, children's toys. While we are discussing this issue, thousands of parents are in shopping centres buying toys for their children, but some of these toys can be dangerous.

The motion I am moving today proposes that all toys containing phthalates be labelled so that parents can make an informed decision when buying products for their children. Phthalates are chemical agents that soften plastics. They are used in many items, including plastic covers for containers, cellophane tissue and children's toys.

With this motion, I ask the government to take action in the case of plastic toys, because studies have shown that this material can cause cancer, damage the liver, and cause infertility. These studies also show that children are more vulnerable to these toxic effects, especially during the growing years.

What is of even greater concern to me is the fact that these phthalates can be found in pacifiers, in teething rings and in a variety of other toys. Imagine, our children are biting into toys that release chemical agents that can cause cancer. Soft plastic toys containing phthalates are like a sponge. When a child bites into a teething ring, these phthalates are released into his digestive system, in the same way that water is released when a sponge is squeezed. Once in the system, these phthalates apparently alter the normal development of the reproductive organs, for example, and they could cause health problems like cancer, infertility and damage to the liver.

So here are these parents in shopping centres probably buying without knowing it toys that can harm their children. That is why labelling is required to allow parents to make informed decisions.

It was Greenpeace that brought the issue of phthalates to the attention of Canadians. Greenpeace did research on toys bought here in Canada to determine the percentage of toys containing phthalates. This research revealed that phthalates made up a rather important part of the product, and often accounted for 10 to 40% of the weight of a toy.

After Greenpeace released its findings, Health Canada conducted its own study, which confirmed Greenpeace's findings.

If our children put in their mouths toys with a 40% toxic content, it is imperative that we take immediate action to protect them. In September, Health Canada started studying the effects of ingesting phthalates contained in toys. This study is still at the preliminary stages but, so far, no action has been taken by the government to increase the visibility of this very serious concern. The department's attitude seems to be: let us wait for the results of our study; too bad if children get sick in the meantime.

You may recall the time we learned about the serious health hazard posed by the mini-blinds that everyone had in their windows. Only after several cases of poisoning were reported in the United States did the government act. Putting the lives of our children at risk because science cannot answer all our questions quickly enough is unacceptable.

In Denmark, tests conducted on rats showed that phthalates cause cancer, liver damage and infertility. These new findings prompted some store chains in Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Argentina, Spain, Belgium and Italy to take a large number of phthalate containing toys off the market.

These stores were responding to a request from the government of their country for the voluntary withdrawal of phthalate containing toys. These stores incurred losses as a result, but they felt that protecting the health of children was more important than making profits.

The Netherlands, Austria and Denmark have put in motion the necessary process to regulate the use of phthalates not only in toys but also in other plastic products.

Just this week, Denmark's environment minister asked the Environmental Protection Agency to develop a proposal to ban all phthalate containing toys for small children. This is what he had to say about phthalates.

When it comes to phthalates in toys for smaller children, I have already had the Environmental Protection Agency prepare proposals for a ban. Ever since the problem with phthalates has shown up, the industry has made enormous effort in trying to dismiss all problems instead of developing more health and environmental friendly material. It is time to act.

Again, that was what Danish environment minister Svend Auken said.

The Belgian minister of public health also encouraged toy distributors in his country to take some toys off the market. He had this to say to the Belgian federation of distributors: “Given the results of analyses in certain countries of the European Union, which indicate that toys and other common objects made of plastic style PVC intended for chewing by young children release significant quantities of phthalates that could represent a health hazard, I appeal to the sense of responsibility of the Belgian federation of distributors and ask you to intervene with members of your federation and have them take voluntary action against the marketing of such products”.

The Belgian minister continued: “I would also stress that you do urgently whatever is necessary to withdraw these plastic style PVC products containing phthalates from sale and thus maintain consumer confidence in the safety of these toys”.

I have just quoted the remarks of two European ministers. If they considered it necessary to act on the matter of phthalates, should Canada not do the same? If these countries, in the light of new information, thought it necessary to withdraw plastic toys from the market, we should obtain the information parents need to know what they are buying.

This is a matter of protecting our children and of consumer rights. In Canada today, parents concerned by what children put in their mouths cannot know that the toys contain phthalates.

The labels of toys containing phthalates provide the information parents need to make a considered decision.

At the moment, Canadian parents have to guess. That is not acceptable. It is also a public information issue. I talk with parents all over the country, and they are alarmed at not being able to get this information. They tell me that their priority is their children's health and that they are entitled to access to information as vital as this.

This morning I did a test with our press colleagues. I gave them a series of plastic toys and asked them which ones contained phthalates. Of course, nobody could tell me.

The problem with phthalates is that they cannot detect it. We have to test for it in the lab or have the manufacturer's list of materials that went into the toy. This is why we need labels, in order to know which toys might be dangerous.

At the present time, Health Canada is starting to do testing on certain toys, but any parent knows that there are a number of toys made out of soft plastic. Before Health Canada can test all those toys, we might well be in the next millenium. Action must be taken now to protect our children's health.

As well, Health Canada has not yet determined what concentration of phthalates is considered dangerous. Even if the toy testing is done, then, they do not have the tools to determine what is acceptable and what is not.

We all know how much time it takes to get standards approved. In this case, as well, Canada is seeking to get an international standard set, which means that once our position has been determined, we will have to get it accepted by the European countries, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, as well as by our colleagues in this undertaking.

I respect what Health Canada is doing, but I believe that, if our European counterparts have acted in a definitive manner on this, the least we can do is to label these toys. Too often in this House we hear of cases where the government has not acted fast enough to deal with a situation, out of lack of information or neglect. This week we received the Krever report, which underscores the shortcomings in government action on tainted blood.

In ten years, do we want to realize that we did not act fast enough on phthalates? I want to be very clear here, a ban on the use of phthalates is not what I want. I understand that science has its merits and must be allowed to play its role.

That is why I am only asking that toys be labelled. This way, Health Canada could take whatever steps are necessary and the public could make informed decisions. In the meantime, I ask toy manufacturers to do what the Danish environment minister asked. Many other substances can be used to make plastic soft. Why risk it? Why not just use other plasticisers?

We often overlook the financial factor in health issues. By taking preventative steps now, we will not need to use an already overburdened health system later. We are talking about diseases for which treatment is expensive. Cancer, infertility and liver damage are expensive to treat. Prevention always pays off.

And, of course, there is the human cost. How can you not act when there are small children who are growing and who, 20, 30 or 40 years from now, could develop cancer or be unable to have children of their own because they chewed on soft plastic toys when they were toddlers. Why take such a risk?

Canada is a sensible country where the well-being of its citizens dominates. When other countries take firm action on a health issue such as this one, should we not act as soon as possible to ensure that Canadians are protected? Of late this government has been more preoccupied with the bottom line than the best interests of Canadians.

What I am asking is not much, a label on toys to ensure that Canadian parents can make an informed decision. Why would we be afraid of an informed public? The human cost of ingesting phthalates is enormous. We are talking about kids with vulnerable bodies who are shaping themselves.

As parents, we all know how quickly they grow, how last month's shirt or pants are too small. Imagine that while their little organs are developing our children are taking a chemical which will alter the normal development process. This means that their little hearts and their little brains do not develop normally. That is the bottom line. That is what we are talking about.

Put in those terms, putting a label on the toys does not seem like much, does it?

I stressed the risks associated with phtalates. I listed the immediate steps various countries took to take toys off the shelves in stores. I am not asking that we reinvent the wheel. I just want Canadians to have all the information they need to make the right decision. Everyone benefits from toy labelling. Let us act now to protect our children's health. I am asking my hon. colleagues to make this their Christmas present to all Canadian children.

[Sable Island Natural Gas, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the prime minister did not even answer the November 6 letter from our leader from Halifax.

The prime minister knows that the hasty decision by cabinet to endorse the maritimes and northeast pipelines project has left northern New Brunswick, Cape Breton and Quebec excluded from most of the potential industrial benefits of the project which would have created jobs.

Once again, why has the prime minister failed to insist that a more detailed study into the potential benefits to Atlantic Canadians be carried out by the natural resources committee of parliament?

[Sable Island Natural Gas, December 4th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the prime minister.

The natural gas on Sable Island is a Canadian resource that must benefit the largest possible number of Canadians. Yet, the federal cabinet just approved the gas pipeline proposed by Maritime and Northeast. The cabinet did not even bother to determine which project was the most beneficial to the economy of Atlantic Canada and of Quebec.

Why did the prime minister refuse to ask the natural resources committee to conduct such an assessment, as requested by the hon. member for Halifax? Does he really want certain regions—

[Francophones Outside Quebec, December 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the 1996 census figures on linguistic profile show a 2% increase in the assimilation rate of francophones in Canada over the last five years. This trend towards assimilation of francophones is unacceptable.

I am a proud Acadian from New Brunswick. I am therefore really concerned when I see Acadians leaving their communities because there are no jobs and heading for anglophone urban centres where the risks of assimilation are greater.

It is the responsibility of this government to invest in our francophone communities outside Quebec. Creating jobs also creates vibrant communities where young people can work and contribute to the continued development of the French language and culture where they were born and grew up.

The federal government's budget cuts to the network of cultural associations and institutions, and to Radio-Canada are contributing to the disappearance of French in Canada. It is time this government stopped cutting and began investing in francophone communities outside Quebec.

[Division No. 49, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have a specific question for my colleague. Tonight, he saw how the member for Abitibi acted in this House when he took off his jacket and asked one of the workers to go downstairs and slug it out. Is this the kind of government we have here in Canada, the one that says it is not in favour of violence? Tonight, we saw how he acted, and then the other one who insulted the unions—