Yvon Godin

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

Mr. Speaker, I want ask the member a question, but I will make a comment first.

I think everybody in Canada knows that I am a unionist. I have worked hard for the workers of this country, especially those in my area which is economically disadvantaged. The member for Bourassa insulted us a while ago. He insulted the workers of this country when he insulted unions.

Would my colleague have the guts, the courage to stand up and apologize to the workers of this country?

[Division No. 48, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Chairman, I will try to be brief enough because, as you said, we have several amendments to look at before 6:30 p.m.

This afternoon, some were talking about people with experience in negotiation. I can tell you that I have been involved in collective bargaining since 1979. Every time we returned to the table after we had reached a goal where we could have a collective agreement and a wage increase had been put forward by the employer, it was fine. But when we returned to the table only to realize that they took some away, it was more often than not that they were negotiating in bad faith.

So, when a government refers the negotiation to an arbitrator without giving us the assurance that they will bring about a collective agreement for our postal workers, I think they are missing the boat. Again they tell us they are not involved in the negotiation. With this motion they show that they are involved in the negotiations and that they do not want Canada Post to give anything to their workers.

[Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my colleague.

During his speech, he appeared to be saying that Canada Post intends to do away with 4,000 jobs. Just now, our other hon. colleague appeared not to know where I got that figure from. Well, I got it from their side. They apparently do not consult each other. My colleague confirms it, he is aware of that.

The other colleague could not answer my question, but this one looks a bit more sincere, having been a union president.

Why is it that the government has not only presented a bill to send the parties to conciliation, but has also hamstrung the mediator and lowered employees' rates of pay to less than what had been negotiated?

[Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997, December 2nd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, honestly I think my colleague should have become a movie star. She almost got me crying this morning.

Could my colleague tell this House and could she tell the postal workers by legislating the workers back to work why this government put a wage decrease on what was proposed in the negotiations? If it is so serious about it, if it is so honest about it, why did it get involved? Why did it not let the arbitrator make the decision?

Furthermore, what is the government's concern regarding the 4,000 people who will lose their jobs? I would like to hear my colleague, and not as a movie star.

[Postal Services Continuation Act, 1997, December 2nd, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question, but first I will say just a few words, mainly that the small businesses suffering because of this strike have my sympathies. We must, however, remember that the Canadian charter gives all of us have the right to belong to a union.

The government has introduced legislation, which once again attacks working men and women, and I find this regrettable. I would therefore like to know, in response to one of my questions, whether the Conservative Party would be prepared to propose amendments and to fight against what the government is in the process of doing.

It is not true that, if the government wants to pass legislation that is against the workers, forcing them back to work, they will be the only ones punished. What has been brought before the House today is shameful. It is a backward step in the negotiations that have already taken place between the employer and the workers, and a backward step as far as wages are concerned.

I would like to ask a question of my colleague from the Conservative Party. He says he does not want any more strikes at Canada Post. Will he therefore confirm before the people of Canada, the workers of Canada, that he is against free bargaining for all postal workers? Is that what my colleague is telling us?

For the record, I want it noted that the Conservatives' position is one of opposition to postal workers having the same right as all other Canadians, that is the right to strike and the right to continue to strike until a negotiated settlement is reached.

What was their opinion around August 6 when the government interfered in the bargaining process and indicated to the employer that there would be no problem if there were a strike, because it was already thinking of bringing in back to work legislation? This is not how collective bargaining is meant to work. In my experience of unions and collective bargaining, when a third party with a certain degree of power comes and sticks its nose in where it does not belong, I can guarantee that the outcome is not good negotiation.

I would therefore like to hear what my hon. colleague from the Conservative Party has to say to that.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, first, I will be voting against the amendments and I will give my reasons why.

I believe, as I said a while ago, that this started with the Conservatives and has continued under the Liberals. They still have not learned their lesson. That is not what Canadians and the working people are asking for.

They want to mix employment insurance premiums with Canada pension plan contributions so they can tell people how much money they can save on their paycheques. I have never seen workers in Canada out in the streets demanding decreased contributions. I have, however, seen employers demanding this.

We must not forget what I sincerely believe is happening in our economy, the reasons our small businesses are experiencing difficulties. In the June 2 election, no small business in our part of the country claimed that it was because they were paying too much in employment insurance premiums. What they did tell me was that there will be nobody left who can afford to buy anything from them, the way the employment insurance system is going. This is why small businesses are closing.

We have to back up and look at what really hurt Canadians and small businesses. If there is no one buying what a small business is selling, the negative effect on the system is far greater than the contributions. People working can pay their contributions. When they are not working, they cannot.

Our system in Canada is running amok, and we have not yet finished paying. We have not finished paying for what we is going on. I listen to what the people at home are saying. I can tell you that it was not only people working who voted for me. Small businesses worked for me and believe in what I say.

The change to the unemployment insurance system began with the Conservative government and was continued by the Liberals. My predecessor said, when he was in opposition, “You are going to create a mess in New Brunswick. I encourage all New Brunswickers to fight any changes to the unemployment insurance system with vigour, because they will spell disaster for New Brunswick”. That is what my predecessor Doug Young said at home. Do you know what our people said? “Mr. Young, we will show you the door, because you have done our region damage”. I say to my colleague that he should think about what he says and that it is not the rates that did the most harm.

I have a problem with the way these things are considered. In other words, we will have to improve our employment insurance system. The focus must really be on job creation and when it is on real job creation, the system will automatically cost less, because there will be fewer people on employment insurance, contributions will decrease and it will all happen.

I think that is what we must look at. The Canada pension plan is expensive at present, but we could perhaps consider alternatives for the Canada pension plan.

I have nothing against the fact that a person who is sick or injured will receive a disability pension, provided this person does not work for a company and the disease or injury is not work related. But I do have a problem with a person who works for a company and pays for compensation, as we call it where I come from, who, one year after having been injured, is asked to apply for the Canada pension plan. Because in that case the CPP has to pay first, when another plan should perhaps be paying for that, especially when the person in question has an employer.

Instead, benefits are paid out of the Canada pension plan for any accident that happened on the employer's premises. The compensation plan only covers the difference between the two plans. Perhaps we could take a look at this, at having employers make their businesses safer places where fewer accidents happen. It might save money.

How many Canadians are receiving CPP disability benefits today when the company that employed them should perhaps be held financially responsible, if the accident happened at the workplace. But that is not how it goes.

My point is that we should look at the whole picture and see how CPP money could be saved by making those responsible pay. Next, we should look at employment insurance and see how small business people can have enough money left to run their businesses.

[Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act, November 27th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to address this topic. I will try to give a little of the background in our province.

I am saddened to see my colleague rise and say that, if the New Democrats were in office, the problem would be worse in ten years than it is now. I can tell you that all the poverty we are seeing today is a legacy from Brian Mulroney's Conservatives.

They were followed by the Liberals, the opposition back then, who said “Elect us and we will do better”. We have never been in such bad shape as we are now. It is all very fine and well to take the tack they are taking, to speak about the economy and how to invest money and reap the benefits, but I can guarantee you Canada never saw as many hungry children as it did under those two governments. It was because of those governments.

I find it really sad that, today, someone from my region, my colleague the hon. member, cannot grasp the fact that families are living in such poverty and that the Canada pension plan, with all the money that goes into it, plays no part in getting the economy moving again.

The problem is that the Conservatives and the Liberals have simply taken money and given it to their friends, the major corporations, in $100 million and $400 million chunks. This is why our economy is in such a sorry state today. There is too much patronage, that is the problem.

Liberal and Conservative members make me think of employment centres. There are the employees and the poor people that have to go to see them about jobs, and if they are not Liberals or Conservatives, they do not get a job. This is why Canada is so far in the hole. This is why Atlantic Canada is always impoverished. Governments have never carried out their responsibilities in the Atlantic provinces. They talk about national unity, but the day Canada considers all the provinces in the country, fewer children in the Atlantic provinces will suffer. I am ashamed of the previous speaker.

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to stress the importance of acting immediately on the issue of climate change.

On the eve of the Kyoto conference, we have a responsibility toward our children and future generations to put forward a responsible strategy that will protect our environment while ensuring a viable economy for years to come.

The protection of our environment is logical for several reasons. The most obvious one is, of course, maintaining a sound environment for the future generation.

My honourable colleagues from other parties have pointed out the cost associated with the use of energy in a responsible way, but they never talked about the consequences of not developing an environmental strategy.

I will give you an example. Not long ago, I was sitting on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources when our colleagues from the Reform Party asked: “Why should we in Canada undertake environmental prevention procedures if the other countries do not to so?” To that I responded that I was proud to be a Canadian. Canada has often shown the way to other countries, which then followed suit. It is because of attitudes like the one displayed by the member of the Reform Party that we sometimes have problems.

I am surprised to hear tonight the speeches of Reform Party members on the environment and on respect for our planet. They show a total lack of respect for our planet. These speeches should not even be tolerated. It is all fine and well to talk about scientists and experts. It reminds me of when I was working in a mine where there were 250 Diesel engines about which the experts said that they did not affect the miners' health. Why? Because the company was profitable. Without saying that they were bought, it is still because of experts such as these that I have a damned problem. Please excuse my language, Mr. Speaker.

Do these members want to tell us that our children's illnesses do not involve any cost, that entire communities are not penalized when fish no longer have an habitat and fish stocks disappear?

We have a responsibility toward Canadians, namely to create a context that will ensure a prosperous economy, while protecting our environment.

The approach put forward by this government obviously does not work. Following the Rio summit, the government set up a strategy which called for voluntary participation in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. What happened? Greenhouse gas emissions did not diminish. They did not even remain at the same level. In fact, they have increased over the last five years.

At one point, the government wanted to put a stop to pollution along the highways, right across the country. Now, when someone throws something out of his car window, it costs him $1,000. I can guarantee that the roadside is much cleaner than before. It is so because the government took concrete steps that led to this improvement. I can guarantee that people would not have acted voluntarily, if it had not stepped in.

Today, if the government told people it is giving them an opportunity to have a clean environment along the roads, coffee drinkers would not throw their cups out of the window. With a fine of $100, or even $1,000 in certain provinces, people keep their cups in the car and wait to throw it in a garbage can. I just do not believe in voluntary participation.

There are colleagues in this House who do not think that it is very serious that Canada has been acting irresponsible for the last five years. They talk of the costs involved if we adopt a responsible position. But we are already paying the price for failing to act.

In fact, the government has conducted a study on the impact of climate change. According to that study, in my region of the Atlantic, we will be especially vulnerable to a rise in the level of the sea. That will mean more floods, the loss of habitats for certain species of fish, changes in the landmass and a drop in the reproductive success rate of marine birds.

The costs are very high when there are floods. When fish stocks disappear, communities suffer. When will the government stop playing the ostrich and take its head out of the sand? The time to act is now and not 15 years down the road, when we will no longer be able to save our environment. We must act and act now.

Acting now does not mean that our economy will be the worse off. There are alternatives that can create jobs while protecting our environment. Through simple measures such as ensuring proper maintenance for their vehicles, Canadians can reduce carbon dioxide emissions by three tonnes per year.

Instead of using 250 trucks that pollute the environment, we could use three locomotives that could do the same work but create much less pollution.

I was speaking with CN officials this week. I asked them how many trucks on the road three locomotives would replace. They told me they would replace 250 tractor trailers. In addition to these 250 exhaust stacks, there are also 4,500 tires. What will happen to these tires later on? Most likely they will be another source of pollution. Now, six locomotives would do the same job as 500 trucks on the road. So, we can take our 4,500 tires and call it 9,000. Picture this, I drove my car from Moncton, New Brunswick, to Sussex and that took me 50 minutes. During this trip, I met no less than 120 trucks coming the other way, and that is not counting those that were going in the same direction as I was.

Strategies could be developed to make the burning of coal less polluting. I have information here about new technology that uses coal to dispose of hospital waste in the United States. This technology is not only good for the environment, it is less expensive. Using this technology could mean savings of up to $400,000 a year for a hospital.

Environmental protection can be good for everyone. Other strategies could create more well-paid jobs over time.

Through research and development, we could develop skilled labour that acquired its expertise here and that could then go and work outside the country. Denmark is a good example of a country that decided to invest in energy produced by windmills and that now exports its expertise throughout the world. We are already behind Europe on these issues. We must act now to remain competitive in the energy sector.

Canada is recognized worldwide as one of the best countries to live in. We have this reputation, because we are the leaders in a number of areas. We show the world that assuming our responsibilities means creating a better world.

In a week's time, leaders from all over will be gathering here in Ottawa for the signing of a treaty prohibiting anti-personnel mines. Without the courage of the Canadians, this historic event could not occur.

Canadians are courageous. They want their government to act responsibly and fairly. They want us to be brave now. This means setting specific objectives that will guarantee slower climate change. This means we must all do our part and use less polluting forms of energy. This common effort must focus on strategies that are based on new technologies and that create jobs.

For the most vulnerable industries, we must look towards diversification of local economies. In the Atlantic region, we have seen what happened when the disappearance of an industry was not anticipated. Now we no longer have any fish and entire communities are suffering.

In order to avoid such a situation, the government must develop long term strategies to prevent the disappearance of certain industries. We must not just do the responsible thing, we must do the humane thing.

Canada has never benefited when its government has refused to be courageous and do the right thing. Protecting our environment is not only the right thing to do, but it is also the strategy that will ensure that Canada will still be the best country in which to live in the next century.

[The Environment, November 26th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, I think the Bloc Quebecois should be first.

[Francophonie Summit, November 18th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, being the proud Acadian that I am, I would like to congratulate the City of Moncton on being selected to host the next Francophonie summit. This is an honour that highlights the vitality and diversity of all francophone communities in Canada.

At the Moncton summit, the focus will be on youth, the youth that represents the future of the French community. It is therefore important to look at the challenges facing young francophones worldwide on the eve of a new millennium.

The Francophonie summit will generate significant economic benefits in the Moncton area and throughout New Brunswick. On the heels of the successful 1995 Congrès mondial des Acadiens, the Moncton area has demonstrated its capacity to host an international event.

The hard working spirit and hospitality of Acadians are legendary and will no doubt ensure the success of the 1999 summit in Moncton.