Yvon Godin

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Quebec), November 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, if my colleague from the Reform Party changes his vote only because I rose in this House, I will do so a lot more often.

What I have been trying to say is that we have a problem with a referendum. Whatever the percentage in favour of a change, be it 51%, 52% or even 60% or 80%, will they side with the 80% majority who want the change or with the 20% minority who are opposed? That is what I was driving at.

We were talking about minorities a minute ago. When the Constitution was adopted in 1867, Protestants were a minority. I was on the committee that studied school reform to make schools non-denominational. I did not receive any letters from the bishops of Quebec saying that they were concerned about changes to section 93.

I did not receive any letters from Protestant leaders either, even though, being on the committee, I was close to the situation. This issue did not arise only three weeks ago. It was debated in the National Assembly in April 1997 by the PQ government and the Liberal opposition. I think it was the best time for a party to score political points. But even the Liberal opposition was in favour.

That is why I was saying earlier that people must be careful when they say that it is the separatists who want this change. I think there is a consensus among Quebeckers on this issue. We are adding fuel to the fire if, every time Quebeckers make a request, we are unwilling to listen and unable to work with them only because they are separatists. We are suggesting to them that they do not need to stay in Canada since they cannot be heard anyway.

I may have a problem with separatists, but it is my problem. Every time Quebeckers ask something of us, I think it is wrong to pin the separatist label on them, especially when we see that there is a consensus among bishops, parents, school boards and all the people of Quebec on this issue. There may not have been public hearings just before the change, but there was a consensus in most groups.

So I think we must be careful with this. This is a warning. We must also be careful with what we say in this House. If we want to keep Quebec in Canada, we must treat it with respect.

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Quebec), November 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, my question is for my colleague in the Reform Party.

They keep making comments and I simply cannot wait to rise and make certain comments and ask questions.

First, I take discussion of a matter such as this seriously. The Reform Party is suggesting that it is the separatists who want this. I find this a bit offensive. Does this mean the bishops of Quebec are separatists? Does this mean that priests or Pentecostal pastors are separatists as well?

I think that there is consensus among religions, and it must not be forgotten that this was a minority of minorities. The Anglican religion, or those religions, were in agreement. So perhaps it was their minority that was against.

I would just like to ask him this question: Is the Reform Party not afraid of a referendum when it comes to minorities? What would happen if there were a referendum in Quebec on the school issue and 80% of people wanted a change, but a 20% minority did not? Would they go along with the 20%?

[Amendment To The Constitution Of Canada (Quebec), November 17th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment to section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

This motion is particularly important because it proposes a constitutional amendment. We must always proceed with great caution when amending provisions of our Constitution, for the impact will be felt for generations to come.

I had the pleasure of sitting on the committee responsible for studying the constitutional amendment. It was my first experience on a parliamentary committee and I must say how much I appreciated the cordial atmosphere that characterized the committee's proceedings. As a rookie in the House of Commons, I found it an excellent opportunity to learn from senators and members with many years' experience. The committee's work was truly motivated by a desire to arrive at a solution that would best serve the interests of Quebeckers and of Canadians.

I would like to thank my colleagues, who spent much time and effort during these three weeks in order to ensure that the groups affected by this amendment could be heard.

During the three weeks the committee sat, we had a chance to meet with a broad range of groups both in support of and opposed to the proposed constitutional amendment. There was not complete consensus, as the Quebec government had led us to believe. A number of religious communities and linguistic groups are opposed to the amendment to section 93 because they are afraid that the rights they have acquired will disappear.

The special joint committee on the Quebec school system therefore had an important job: to consult the people of Quebec and of Canada in order to ensure that all points of view were expressed and heard.

Before looking at all those in favour of the constitutional amendment, I would first of all like to speak about those groups that are opposed. Numerous religious and linguistic groups travelled to Ottawa in order to make their concerns known.

The groups opposed to the amendment to section 93 expressed serious concerns about the status of minority rights in our Canadian society if the amendment is passed. If these rights to education can be constantly revisited with very little public consultation, other minority rights are also vulnerable. They argue that there is a great danger that minority rights will be withdrawn based simply on the will of the majority. This is why it is important to hold public hearings where all sides of the issue can be heard. The Government of Quebec refused to hold public hearings on this issue and the minority concerned hardly had the opportunity to make its views known.

The minorities in question are the Protestants. In Quebec, there are the Protestants and the Catholics. In Quebec, Protestants were the minority. Those groups I heard in committee were minorities of minorities.

As legislators, we often forget that we represent the people. We should never be afraid to consult the people. They put us here and they can take us out.

I realize that the Government of Quebec had a strict timetable to follow, but it has no excuse for not setting up public hearings where people could have expressed their views, especially when the issue is the amendment of our Constitution. Lack of consultation is harmful not only to those groups who cannot have a voice, but also to the health of democracy in our country.

By consultation, I mean consultations through public meetings prior to the implementation of such changes or requests for change.

Despite these difficulties, it is important to note that minority rights in Canada are not being compromised. Amending section 93 of the Constitution is a specific issue that affects Quebec only. It has no impact on the rights of other minority communities in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada.

Groups opposed to the amendment also told us of their concern about losing their denominational schools. It should be noted that the purpose of amending section 93 is the abolition of denominational school boards in the cities of Quebec and Montreal. The proposed changes do not prohibit Catholic or Protestant schools. Rather they affect how schools are managed.

I am concerned that acquired rights are being withdrawn to please the majority. In my riding of Acadie—Bathurst, people fought long and hard to ensure that francophone schools in the communities of Saint-Sauveur, Saint-Simon et Sainte-Rose remain open.

Let us not forget that people took to the streets in protest when the government attempted to close the schools. This is why I say that I am very concerned whenever changes are proposed to the Constitution. We must keep in mind that the RCMP used dogs, tear gas and nightsticks against children and parents. This is why I feel so strongly about constitutional changes affecting schools.

Our children's education is a very sensitive issue. When new strategies on the management of our school systems are put forward, we should make sure that all aspects have been examined, hence the importance of consulting the public through public hearings.

I believe that the present situation in Quebec is one of the very few exceptions allowing us to question the privileges granted Protestant and Catholic communities. Let us not forget that section 93 protects only two denominational groups in two cities. This means that people in the Gaspé Peninsula, for example, enjoy no protection at all under section 93 as pertains to denominational education. Furthermore, all other denominational groups have no protection under section 93. The cultural context of 1867 may have justified the protection of only two denominational communities but the multicultural character of Quebec in 1997 could hardly justify protecting some communities and not the others.

There may not be unanimity in Quebec about section 93 but there is nonetheless a large consensus. Even the denominational groups that are affected support the amendment of section 93 because an amended section would better reflect Quebec's cultural and linguistic reality.

The Provincial Association of Catholic Teachers, which represents 3,000 teachers from 25 school boards in Quebec, supports the constitutional amendment because, under the current system, the English community is divided between two school systems.

It argues that religious education and denominational schools are still possible if the parents request it. Amending section 93 and setting up linguistic school boards will meet the needs of both the and the French community. Most groups that came before us believed linguistic school boards were a must.

If the Protestants and Catholics who are affected are in favour of amending section 93, it would be irresponsible on our part to ignore such a consensus.

In spite of this fairly obvious consensus, our Reform friends would like a referendum. Do they not realize that a referendum cannot reflect the minority's interests? We are talking about minority rights here; the will of the majority is only part of what we have to consider.

I would be more concerned about supporting the amendment to section 93 if all the political parties in Quebec were not in agreement. However, when the National Assembly debated this issue, it was passed not only by a majority vote, but unanimously: 103 to zero. We all know in this House how difficult it is to achieve unanimity on a particular issue. If the National Assembly succeeded in securing unanimous consent on such controversial issues as language and religion, it must be recognized that voters as a whole had to be in agreement too.

I had another concern during committee hearings. When we speak about denominational schools, we are speaking about the importance of communicating, through the school system, values that are fundamental to us. However, we often forget that children are caught in difficult situations when religion is taught in schools.

I have a hard time admitting that Pierre will have to leave the classroom whenever the teacher speaks about Jesus because Pierre is a Jehovah's Witness. We must think very carefully about what it means to teach religion in schools given our present cultural reality. We must respect all the children attending our schools.

I pondered carefully over what was said in committee. I even spoke with several priests in my riding and they think that religious education should be the responsibility of parents and not that of the schools.

The school should definitely convey fundamental values, but the true transmission of values should be done by the family and the church.

One of the most important roles we have as parents is to communicate to our children the beliefs and values that we consider as important. To abandon this responsibility by relying on school teachers to do this job will clearly harm our children.

The amendment to section 93 shows how the federal government can serve Quebec's interests. This situation shows how our country can be flexible in certain circumstances to put forward policies that reflect the specific needs of a province. This co-operation between the provinces and the federal government is the foundation of the Canadian federation and, as a result, Canadians and Quebeckers come out of this as winners.

Even though I support the proposed amendment, I still have concerns about the process that has led us to debate this issue. I have indicated earlier and I will repeat that the Quebec government should have consulted the people of Quebec through public hearings.

The special joint committee, here in the federal Parliament, only had two weeks to hear witnesses. Because of the deadline that had been set, some groups had some difficulty coming to tell us about their concerns. Amending the Constitution should not be an exercise to be taken lightly and two weeks are not enough to go around such an issue.

Despite these problems, I put my trust in the people of Quebec. If there are concerns that have not been expressed through our committee, I hope the population of Quebec will be listened to.

Fundamentally, the New Democratic Party respects Quebec's autonomy to establish linguistic school boards. The amendment to section 93 will allow the Quebec school system to better respond to the needs of the population of Quebec. We now trust that the Quebec government will establish the new linguistic school boards with all due consideration of the electorate's concerns.

[Newfoundland Unemployment, October 30th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am speaking today in support of Motion No. 177, which states:

That, in the opinion of this House, a special committee should be established to study the severe unemployment problem in Newfoundland and Labrador.

At the same time, I would add New Brunswick, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and, going even further afield, British Columbia, on the Pacific coast, with all its fisheries problems.

Before I proceed with my speech, I would like to make a few comments to my colleague in the Reform Party. He spoke about Frank McKenna and said we should listen to what Frank McKenna has said.

I will say this in his language to make sure he will not have to get the translation. For the 10 years Frank McKenna was in power in New Brunswick I never once heard him say that he did not need any programs. However, on the same week that he took his resignation he said he did not need those programs and now we have to break the tax. Maybe this was because he wanted the support of the Reform Party out west if he were ever to become the prime minister of the country. I can tell the House he never said that when he was in power.

When we talk about the reduction of taxes to health and how much the government is spending, the Reform Party is in the wrong place. If Reformers want to save money for the country, they should follow what their leader did before the election when he said he would not move into Stornoway or use a limousine. Now they are using taxpayers' money to live at Stornoway. As if Stornoway was not good enough, it needed over $100,000 for repairs.

Clearly, unemployment rates in Newfoundland and Labrador have reached critical levels, despite the government's promises to invest in manpower training and economic restructuring.

Like the Conservatives before them, the Liberals cut social services and deregulated industry. The result? The rich get richer, but the ordinary folks continue to suffer.

The Liberals were elected on a promise of hope. Instead they embraced the idea that we could no longer afford the things we value as Canadians. Unemployment and the economic insecurity that goes with it are facts of life that we have to accept.

Accepting the insecurity that goes along with unemployment is out of the question. Never will the NDP support the Liberal view, which ignores human suffering. Never will the NDP say that nothing more can be done for the workers in this country.

Recently, in his first speech in the Atlantic region since the election that saw the number of Liberal seats there drop from 31 to 11, the Prime Minister had the nerve to say that cuts were inevitable and that people in the Atlantic provinces were going to thank him. For what?

I doubt that the thousands of unemployed are ready to thank the Prime Minister for the cuts that have plunged them into terrible poverty.

In his speech, the Prime Minister also admitted that the Atlantic provinces had suffered the most from federal cuts. He said that, because we depended more on the federal government than other regions in the country, we had naturally, yes naturally, been at a disadvantage.

When is this government going to wake up and realize that entire communities are suffering because of the Liberals' failure to act? The problems in Newfoundland are problems that can also be found in my region of New Brunswick. People want to work but cannot find employment because the region's economy has not recovered from the fisheries crisis.

The TAGS program was supposed to eliminate this problem and make it possible to reinvest in manpower, to support communities financially, in order to diversify the economy and alleviate suffering. But, as with everything the Liberals have undertaken, it was just a knee-jerk reaction lacking long term vision.

This program was so badly managed that cheques were distributed to people who had been dead for some time. If a private company had been run like this, it would have gone belly up in no time.

Now the government comes to us and says “Sorry folks, but we have run out of money, and we have to close down the program”. Can a government give this kind of answer when these people have paid taxes for years and devoted their energy to the economic development of their community, particularly when the crisis they find themselves in is again due to the government's mismanagement?

Well, enough is enough. People do not just want to survive. All they are asking is to be able to work and earn a decent living.

The TAGS program did nothing to build on Atlantic Canada's strengths; on the fishermen's tenacity, determination and expertise; on the fishing culture and heritage; or on the community's determination to survive.

As elected representatives, we must offer constructive criticism of these types of government programs. We have a duty to tell the Prime Minister it is not enough to help his friends the bankers; he must also think about ordinary people.

What people from the Atlantic region need is a proactive approach that takes into account the structural problems of regional economies. This is why it is so important to establish a parliamentary committee to look at the unemployment crisis. It is the first step toward a proactive approach that will identify the region's fundamental problems, thus making us aware of the communities' real concerns, instead of applying a band-aid solution.

People in Newfoundland also need short term projects to fill the void left by the expiry of TAGS. They need an early retirement program for older workers who will probably not have an opportunity to re-enter the labour market. This is also true for people in New Brunswick, in the Gaspe Peninsula and in Nova Scotia.

The NDP believes we must tackle the serious issue of unemployment right now. It is possible to set up long term job creation policies that will ensure decent salaries for families. We believe a full employment policy must the government's top priority.

As we know, job creation remains Canadians' first concern. There must be a more balanced approach than the ones proposed by the Liberals, the Conservatives and the Reformers. These are irresponsible approaches, as they never take into account the impact of the policy on small Atlantic communities.

They always come up with proposals that serve Toronto bankers at the expense of fishers in Harbour Grace.

There is another way of acknowledging the suffering of people, which is to offer solutions to alleviate it. Newfoundland is not an isolated case. We must face the real problems that ail the Atlantic region. This government must have the courage to put forward proactive measures for the short and the long term.

The people of Newfoundland deserve to have a courageous government that is listening to them. Is this government able to fulfil their needs and meet their expectations?

[Program For Older Worker Adjustment, October 29th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the BC mine near Thetford Mines will close Saturday. Three hundred jobs will be lost and this will have a serious impact on the region's economy.

There have been repeated requests for an adjustment program for older workers, but the Minister of Human Resources Development has rejected them all, saying that the workers had to report to the employment centre. Does this government take pleasure in seeing people suffer? Because of such heartless policies from the Liberals, all the communities in Thetford Mines will suffer.

Is the minister willing to set up an early retirement program for the BC mine workers, so that he can show that he cares a bit for the people losing their jobs?

[Employment Insurance, October 24th, 1997]

Yes, it is terrible. Better yet, they should deliver on their threat, because our people want to work.

In any event, back to the Christmas wreathes, because this is an interesting case. This is what happens to our industries. We cannot get at the fish in the winter because of the ice, there are no Christmas wreathes in the summer, blueberries do not grow under the snow, and there is no peat on top of it. These are the kinds of industries in which the government invests.

There are secondary and tertiary industries, but that is too complicated for the government. They want to leave that for their friends in other countries: the Japanese and the folks in Boston get a crack at the secondary and tertiary sectors.

Back to the Christmas wreathes. The government told these people: “You do not have enough hours. Go and make Christmas wreathes”. Off went 130 or 150 people to work for someone in New Brunswick. All of a sudden, the government decided this was not insurable employment, once again, three years later. Three years later, it decided that 130 to 140 of these people were not eligible. What the government has done is completely unacceptable.

Furthermore, these people went to the employment insurance offices and explained how they were making the wreathes. For the information of wealthy Canadians who do not have to make Christmas wreathes, this is not something that you go into the woods to do. You do not strip the boughs off the tree in the woods and make the wreath with a supervisor standing beside you. For those who do not know about these things, you go into the woods, you cut branches, and then you have to strip them. Somebody then makes the wreathes. People went back home, opened their garage doors, set up tables and began turning out wreathes.

When they reported back to the employment insurance office, they explained all this. They were insurable. But, as I am telling you, the government needed money to pay down the national debt. It was not enough to cut employment insurance. They said they would digging into the pockets of the poor.

Reform Party members are asking for a decrease in premiums because companies are having a rough time. They never say that Canadians are suffering because of employment insurance cuts.

These people went to EI offices, and they were told they were eligible. In the Acadian peninsula today, for one company alone, 150 families owe between $10,000 to $15,000, and on top of that, they are seen as cheats. What the government has done to these people is totally unacceptable. That is what it did.

That is not all. They are now saying that we must encourage small and medium-sized businesses. If I had a small business today, I would naturally start by hiring my children. It would be normal because it would be my company and my investment. What did the government do? Relatives are not eligible for EI. So why encourage the development of small and medium sized businesses when their owners face such total discrimination in Canada? I thought we could expect fair and equal treatment in Canada.

There is also this black hole, this vacuum created because the government promised to make changes and to take care of them but did not follow through with the 910 hours now required, which people cannot accumulate.

To conclude, as I said over and over in my remarks, changes must be made immediately to the employment insurance plan. Seasonal workers are expecting the federal government to show some degree of compassion by passing immediately the motion put forward by the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, thereby ensuring that Canadian workers can look for work with dignity.

I want this motion to be a real motion that we could debate, instead of hiding like the hon. member for Moncton. During the election campaign, she promised the unemployed she would fight to improve the employment insurance system, but she now refuses to support the motion before us.

[Employment Insurance, October 24th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I am speaking today in support of the motion of my colleague from the riding of Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques—like the name of some families down home, the Basques—proposing major amendments to the employment insurance system.

My colleague proposes that the benefits for seasonal workers and new entrants be improved.

These are serious problems, and the government must address them immediately. I believe the Liberals have forgotten that these are real people who are suffering, that entire families have nothing to eat because of the changes to employment insurance. I will give you examples of the government's insensitivity and incompetence.

First, I would like to point out that we have a bit of a problem with the matter of reducing contributions. Allow me to explain what our problem is. Before reducing contributions, I think the first problem needs to be solved, the problem of employment insurance and the employment insurance formula. After that has been done, then would come the time to look at contributions, if there is any money left to reduce contributions.

I think it is really important to look at the employment insurance formula in order to be certain that it meets the requirements of the people who need it.

If we look at what employment insurance reform has brought to our area and other areas in Canada, we see mostly problems. I am going to give you a few examples from back home, which I am very familiar with.

First, when the government decided to make changes to employment insurance, what did it do? Not only did it decide to make changes for the future, but it suddenly decided to look at people's files, people who had been told by its officials they were eligible for employment insurance. Surprise, they found they had made a mistake three years back. They wrongly told some people they were entitled to employment insurance. The people concerned were poor—I will give you examples—they were not rich.

I will give the example of a man who came to see me in my office shortly after the elections, a man with a child. There were also a father, and a mother with 11 children from Caraquet, in New Brunswick. Because of the problems in the fish plants, that man went to see the government to find out whether he qualified for employment insurance. You know, employment insurance is supposed to provide some money to feed families. He went to the government and was told “Well, you have to work, to work hard. Go out there and find some work”. The man said “I would be glad to work, but I cannot get a job”. And he was told “We are creating jobs in New Brunswick now. We are making Christmas wreaths. Go and see the employer, he will give you a job”. And he did get a job making Christmas decorations.

The poor man went to work and put in a number of weeks in order to qualify for employment insurance. The guy, his wife and his kid would have loved to keep on making Christmas wreaths all year long, but that is not the way it works. After Christmas, wreaths are no longer in demand. So, they are out of a job again.

They applied for employment insurance to see if they qualified. “Of course. You are entitled to employment insurance, and your son too.” So they get benefits for a year or two and then, all of a sudden, department officials come to their senses—I mean senior officers, I make the distinction because I do not want to offend low-level public servants who have no authority whatsoever—and ask for an investigation on these poor people because it would seem a mistake was made two years back. They tell these people they owe the government $10,000 or $15,000.

That is what Canadians got from the Liberals. The Liberals told seasonal workers back home to make Christmas wreaths, that great new job in New Brunswick.

I call on the Government of Canada not to blackmail Atlantic Canadians by telling them they are going to make them work full time.

[Customs Tariff, October 24th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I do not think that we should go all day with this but there is one thing I do not understand.

With all of the agreements we have signed, such as the free trade or the MAI or whatever, I find that the Atlantic provinces are not on the map anymore. Nobody is working down home.

If we find a new program I hope we will try to put the Atlantic provinces back on the map.

[Non-Profit Organizations, October 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, this government is resorting to patronage at the expense of the poor in our society.

In Ottawa alone, the minister wants to close six non-profit organizations to award a lucrative contract to former employees of the Department of Human Resources Development. The Liberal scheme will cost an additional $520,000, and those who used to have access to the services provided by these organizations will no longer have that possibility. Such is the Liberal logic. It explains why the minister refused to meet with representatives from one of these organizations.

Is the minister prepared to meet with the Ottawa's Women's Career Counselling group?

[Non-Profit Organizations, October 24th, 1997]

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

While Canadians are still waiting for the jobs promised by the Liberals, the government is cutting funding for non-profit organizations helping the unemployed re-enter the labour market.

What the government is saying to women, aboriginal people, the disabled and others who have a particularly hard time finding a job is “sorry, but we do not want to help you”.

Is the government prepared to reaffirm its commitment to all those who are trying to find a job by maintaining funding for these organizations?