36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 66
CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 24, 1998
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1005
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | APPRENTICESHIP NATIONAL STANDARDS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-363. Introduction and first reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Public Safety Officers Compensation Fund
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Szabo |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-19. Second reading
|
1010
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jay Hill |
1015
1020
1025
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1030
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1035
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Antoine Dubé |
1040
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
1045
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Guimond |
1050
1055
1100
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Garry Breitkreuz |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
1105
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Diane Ablonczy |
1110
1115
1120
1125
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Guy St-Julien |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
1130
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1135
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Leon E. Benoit |
1140
1145
1150
1155
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain |
1200
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1205
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Paul Crête |
1210
1215
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Charlie Penson |
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ghislain Fournier |
1230
1235
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
1240
1245
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
1250
1255
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rob Anders |
1300
1305
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gary Lunn |
1310
1315
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
1320
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lee Morrison |
1325
1330
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Reynolds |
1335
1340
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Werner Schmidt |
1345
1350
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1355
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ELI AND LAURETTA MARTIN
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REFORM YOUTH CONVENTION
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
1400
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ESTONIA
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NEW BRUNSWICK
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PROSTATE CANCER
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Elinor Caplan |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STREPTOCOCCAL GROUP A
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Steve Mahoney |
1405
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Art Hanger |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ANDRÉ NADEAU
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. René Laurin |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NAGANO OLYMPIC GAMES
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Raymonde Folco |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FORMER BC MINE WORKERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Drouin |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DON CHERRY
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Monique Guay |
1410
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | AIR TRANSPORT
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nick Discepola |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ANNIE PERRAULT
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Price |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | RICHMOND HILL
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bryon Wilfert |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN CENSUS
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Deepak Obhrai |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
1415
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
1420
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Miss Deborah Grey |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MILLENNIUM FUND
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
1425
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Christiane Gagnon |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Angela Vautour |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvon Godin |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David M. Collenette |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POVERTY
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1430
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jean J. Charest |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant McNally |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rahim Jaffer |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BILL C-28
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
1435
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Darrel Stinson |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Pankiw |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DON CHERRY
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Michel Gauthier |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Sheila Copps |
1440
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUTH
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Inky Mark |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted White |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jacques Saada |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lloyd Axworthy |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE DEBT
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Eric Lowther |
1445
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reed Elley |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FISHERIES
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Stoffer |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Gilbert Normand |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | IMMIGRATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Libby Davies |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lucienne Robillard |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE ECONOMY
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
1450
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Scott Brison |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Tony Valeri |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | DISASTER ASSISTANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sophia Leung |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lyle Vanclief |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CALGARY DECLARATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Stéphane Dion |
1455
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C VICTIMS
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Wendy Lill |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Right Hon. Jean Chrétien |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jean Dubé |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | JUSTICE
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Andrew Telegdi |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
1500
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POINTS OF ORDER
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Budget Debate
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Budget Debate
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Questions
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
1505
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Budget Debate
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Randy White |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1510
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADA LABOUR CODE
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-19. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1515
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Val Meredith |
1520
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Abbott |
1525
1530
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ken Epp |
1535
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Casson |
1550
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bob Mills |
1555
1600
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
1605
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Strahl |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Nunziata |
1610
1615
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Duncan |
1620
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Philip Mayfield |
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE BUDGET
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Financial Statement of the Minister of Finance
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
1635
1640
1645
1650
1655
1700
1705
1710
1715
1720
1725
1730
1735
1740
1745
1750
1755
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1800
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 83 |
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 66
![](/web/20061116190826im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, February 24, 1998
The House met at 10 a.m.
Prayers
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1005
[English]
APPRENTICESHIP NATIONAL STANDARDS ACT
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.) moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-363, an act to require the establishment of
national training and certification standards for trades that
receive apprenticeship training.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this act is to facilitate
the setting of national standards of apprenticeship training and
certification that will have national recognition. The minister
will establish organizations with representation from government
and stakeholders to achieve this objective. There will be an
annual report to Parliament that is deemed referred to a standing
committee.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed)
* * *
PETITIONS
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS COMPENSATION FUND
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
this historic budget day I am pleased to present a petition
signed by a number of Canadians.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House
that our police officers and firefighters are required to place
their lives at risk on a daily basis and that employment benefits
of police officers and firefighters often do not provide
sufficient compensation to families when one of them loses their
life in the line of duty.
They would also like to point out that the public mourn that
loss of a firefighter or a police officer killed in the line of
duty and wish to support in a tangible way the surviving families
in their time of need. The petitioners therefore ask Parliament
to establish a public safety officers compensation fund for the
benefit of families of public safety officers who are killed in
the line of duty.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
following question will be answered today: No. 58.
.[Text]
Mr. Keith Martin:
Could the minister of National Defence indicate when and how
many civilian and military jobs will be terminated as a result of
the national defence planning guidelines of 1998 and whether these
jobs will be replaced by tenders from the private sector?
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence): The
defence planning guide, DPG, 1998, did not direct any new military
personnel reductions. Nor did it assign any new civilian
workforce reductions. However, DPG 98 mandates the continuation
of reductions resulting from departmental strategies to cope with
previous budget reductions and to meet the personnel targets of
approximately 60,000 military and 20,000 civilians assigned in
the 1994 white paper.
The Canadian forces and the Department of National Defence must
be able to deliver the missions which the government defined in
the 1994 defence white paper in the most cost effective way
possible and within the constraints of available funding. The
department is embarking upon new initiatives that may impact upon
employment in the support functions of the department and the
Canadian forces. Options being considered are various alternative
service delivery, ASD, mechanisms such as: inter alia, private
sector contracts; in house bids; employee takeover; partnering
and collaboration between government and the private sector; and
privatizing. Our reviews of ASD initiatives will allow for fair
consultation and involvement of all stakeholders and interested
parties including management, employees, unions, industry, local
communities, and other government departments. Principles are
in place to guide decision making on ASD initiatives, and the
review of these initiatives from analysis to implementation may
take up to 24 months.
It is too soon to tell what the impact upon jobs will be, but
the Department of National Defence and the Canadian forces are
committed to fair consultation and close involvement of all
stakeholders.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
The House resumed from February 20 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I)
and the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
1010
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate with
the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River who had
approximately five minutes remaining.
Mr. Jay Hill: I thought it was more Mr. Speaker, but I
will bow to your wisdom. I am sure you have checked
Hansard.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Chair will
afford the first speaker whose speech was interrupted a fair
amount of latitude to get his comments in.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be using the 20 minutes or whatever portion of
time you deem I have remaining.
At the outset I wish to indicate that I will endeavour to stay
as relevant as possible during my remarks today. I know how
important it is to the Speaker that we remain on topic when we
address bills and that is my intention.
When I was unfortunately cut off from further debate on Friday,
I was at that part in my presentation where I was talking about
Bill C-19 as it relates to farmers and as it relates to the
transport of farm products and commodities throughout the land.
At the end of my remarks I said that despite government claims to
the contrary, Bill C-19 will not guarantee that grain will be
transported to its destination. I will pick up where I left off.
It was just a couple of years ago in 1995 when western farmers
saw rail traffic come to a grinding halt. Now these farmers are
haunted by the very real possibility of another rail strike or a
lockout this spring because the agreement that brought an end to
the 1995 strike expired in December. Bill C-19 will do
absolutely nothing to stop that from happening.
As I discovered during debate on Bill C-4, an act to amend the
Canadian Wheat Board Act, which was rammed through the House
under closure, this government gives farmers little priority.
Farmers are not getting the attention and substantive legislation
they deserve from this Liberal government.
On many occasions we have seen work stoppages in the national
transportation and grain handling sectors. In 1987 there was a
five day dispute between the railways and their union. Late that
same year there was a 42 day work stoppage between Prince Rupert
Grain Ltd. and the Grain Workers Union which resulted in some
very heavy financial losses. In 1991 there was a 16 day dispute
between the Department of Transport and the public service union.
As I mentioned earlier there was a 20 day work stoppage in 1995
during a dispute between the railways and their unions.
In all of those cases the federal government followed through
with back to work legislation. This is a patchwork method of
ensuring the continuation of essential services. Both management
and unions have little incentive to negotiate in good faith. Both
parties come to rely on back to work legislation as a way to
eventually end the work dispute but it is divisive and simply
means that labour disputes will flare up again all too soon. This
will certainly be the case this spring if the rail workers and
management cannot come to an agreement. Grain farmers will be
saying “Here we go again”.
These stoppages in our transportation system have very serious
ramifications for our reputation on the international stage as a
reliable shipper of farm commodities. As agriculture critic for
the official opposition I can say that—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I am being heckled by members
across the way which is a standard operating procedure in the
House.
Farmers are very cognizant of these serious ramifications and
Canadians are very aware that when these stoppages occur our
international reputation is greatly damaged. We all want to
protect against this.
There have been several occasions where back to work legislation
appeared to be the only alternative to end a dispute and provide
relief to those losing thousands, even millions, of dollars due
to work stoppage. It is not the only alternative available.
It is not Reform's policy to simply criticize a policy but to
proactively come up with concrete alternatives and legislation
that will provide substantive change. In the case of labour
disputes, we are confident that final offer selection arbitration
is the best hope for getting a settlement. It requires both
sides to act in good faith and lessens some of the bitter
aftermath of a strike or a lockout.
1015
I hope the government members in the House take the time to
listen while I elaborate on this process. It is an excellent
alternative to back to work legislation that they will find
attractive.
Back to work legislation undermines the collective bargaining
process. Final offer selection arbitration kicks in only after a
union and an employer cannot come to an agreement. Together they
must agree on and recommend an arbitrator or arbitration
panel. The union and the employer must give the arbitrator a
list of the issues they cannot agree on and a list of the
issues they have agreed on. For the disputed issues the
arbitrator receives from each party a final offer for settlement.
The arbitrator will then select one of the final offers. His
offer is binding on both parties.
What this means is that both sides will be forced to make
reasonable offers. Each will want the arbitrator to pick their
offer or they will be forced to live with the offer made by the
other party. Therefore to provide a better chance that the
arbitrator accepts their offer, I believe that both the union and
the employer will make a good attempt at being more than
reasonable.
This concept is simple and it avoids prolonged work stoppages or
back to work legislation. The entire nature of the collective
bargaining process can be improved in the long term. Unions and
employers will become more aware of the reality of final offer
selection arbitration and will be more inclined to habitually
negotiate in good faith. As a result unions and employers will
become more focused on negotiations instead of the political
ploys and media stunts that are seen frequently in current labour
disputes where back to work legislation looms on the horizon.
I would like to digress at this point and explain to viewers
back home in a simpler way and use an analogy. In business there
is a common practice for partners who are in business together. I
am sure you are well aware of this, Mr. Speaker. You have been
in business for a number of years in different enterprises over
your working life in the real world. I am certain you can
appreciate what I am going to talk about.
The reality is that when people enter into a partnership
sometimes they are concerned about what may happen in the future.
They enter into what is commonly referred to as a shotgun
agreement. How does a shotgun agreement work? If you come to an
impasse where one of the partners wants to leave the partnership
and wants to sell his side to the other partner or see the
business sold, the agreement protects the partner who is still in
the enterprise.
You have to make a reasonable offer. Under the terms of that
agreement, if you put too high a value on your half of the
company, let us say you have a 50:50 share in a corporation, the
shotgun agreement allows the other partner to say “that is too
high, you pay me that amount and instead of me buying you out at
x dollars, you buy me out”. This is similar in a way to
final offer selection arbitration. It forces both sides in a
potential dispute to be reasonable. It forces them to come up
with a reasonable offer, because there is a certain amount of
fear that if they do not have the most reasonable offer the other
side's offer will be accepted.
I use that because a lot of farmers I am pleased to
represent are well aware of shotgun agreements and how they
work. It might better help them to understand what we are talking
about when we talk about final offer selection arbitration and
how that could force both sides to be more reasonable and force
them to the middle ground.
The federal government has jurisdiction over approximately 10%
of the labour force. Federal legislation and the Canadian Labour
Code affect 700,000 employees. The federal government has an
opportunity and an obligation, I suggest, to set an example in
labour relations. The advantages and benefits that would arise
from the use of final offer selection arbitration by the federal
government have the potential to resonate through the entire
Canadian labour force.
As I have said, there are a number of flaws contained in Bill
C-19. I am primarily concerned with the substance it lacks in
order that farmers can avoid the dire consequences of work
stoppages. There are several aspects of this bill that are
nothing short of alarming.
Section 109.1 gives the Canada Industrial Relations Board
authority to order an employer to release names and addresses of
off site workers to union recruiters.
I can hardly believe this government would consider this kind of
legislation in today's society where we are supposed to be
knowledgeable about the risks to personal privacy and safety.
1020
Under no circumstances should individual rights be compromised,
particularly to initiate unsolicited contact from any
organization or individual.
One of Reform's amendments to Bill C-19 put forward by my hon.
colleague would have at least given employees the freedom to
choose whether their names and addresses were released. This is a
fundamental right and I am astonished that I am even debating
this issue in this House. How can this government justify
violating an individual's right to privacy? We should think
about it.
There are many other options available to ensure that off site
workers have access to union information and activities without
going to this extreme. This is certainly not the way to go about
it. There is no evidence of fairness and balance in a bill which
jeopardizes personal rights, privacy and safety.
I want to get to one other issue also contained in the bill that
I am very concerned about. Under this section the minister will
not guarantee Canadian workers under federal jurisdiction the
right to participate in secret ballot representation votes to
determine whether a union will represent them. There is a
section in this bill that will allow that. We should just think
about this for a moment. They will not get a secret vote. This
bill is actually an attack on democracy and I feel very strongly
about this. It kind of reminds me of another bill.
As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, regarding your concern
about relevance, I do not want to digress too much but it is very
similar to a bill that was recently rammed through this House
with the use of closure, Bill C-4, the amendments to the Canadian
Wheat Board Act, which I referred to briefly in my remarks
earlier this morning. Why does it remind me of that bill?
Democracy delayed is democracy denied, and freedom delayed is
freedom denied. That is what happened with Bill C-4.
With Bill C-4, this government and the Minister responsible for the
Canadian Wheat Board had the opportunity to act and to grant
farmers some freedom. What did we see? We saw them completely
flout democracy and it has been denied.
I asked the minister if he intends to sit idly by and watch
farmers be thrown in jail for protesting what they view as a
fundamental issue of democracy and freedom, the right to sell
their own product. Obviously with the passage of Bill C-4 he
does.
Similarly, Bill C-19 gives the Canada Industrial Relations Board
jurisdiction to certify a trade union that does not have a
majority support “where, but for the unfair labour practice, the
union could reasonably have been expected to have had the support
of the majority of the employees in a unit”.
Imagine that. What we see here is an attack on democracy. No
secret vote, and it will be left to this Canada Industrial
Relations Board to make this arbitrary decision to certify a
union despite the fact that it will not have any clear signal
whether the majority of the workers in that workplace wish to be
represented by that union. Think about this.
Neither the Canada Industrial Relations Board nor any other body
has the capacity to rationally discharge a task which involves
nothing more than wild speculation. If an employer has committed
an unfair labour practice the board should sanction the employer,
not deprive workers of their fundamental democratic right to vote
on the wisdom of union representation.
Certainly I am in agreement with that.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are indicating, unfortunately. It is
amazing how quickly time goes when a person is concerned about
this legislation and the attack on democracy built into Bill
C-19.
1025
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am curious that the member would take a position that seems to
be contradictory. On the one hand he talks about final offer
arbitration or final offer selection as being the panacea to all
the problems in the labour movement which would virtually
eliminate strikes and take away collective bargaining. It would
simply put it into a “you put your best foot forward and I will
put mine” and that will be the end of that. Then with the same
breath the member talks in terms of protecting the democratic
rights of the workers he purports to be representing in this
speech. I find those two positions rather contradictory.
Clearly collective bargaining in the labour movement is a time
tested tradition that ensures that the workers have their say and
have the ability to negotiate for their future and their
families.
What the Reform Party would do in this case would be to strip
the workers of their democratic right and then on the other hand
try to pretend they are champions of their democratic rights
because they want them to be able to vote on certification, even
if 90% of them have signed cards.
Even Mike Harris in Ontario has not gone as far in the extreme
as the Reform Party. I wonder if the member might have some
comments on those remarks.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to add my
comments.
The audacity of the member opposite knows no bounds. It is just
incredible. This is the government whose answer to labour
disputes is to legislate people back to work. In the autocratic,
top down way in which this Liberal government operates all we
have to do is hearken back to pre-Christmas. It is not that long
ago. Certainly the hon. member's memory should go back that far
to the Canada Post dispute where the Liberals sat on their duffs
and did absolutely nothing when they knew that dispute was going
to flare up. Everyone in the country knew it was coming but they
did nothing. They knew in the end they would simply legislate
them back to work.
This is the hon. member's answer on how to respect democracy
and how to respect worker rights.
Final offer selection arbitration, despite the opinion of the
member opposite, would augment the collective bargaining process.
An hon. member: It would destroy it.
Mr. Jay Hill: It would not destroy it. It is shameful
what this Liberal government will do with labour relations and
what it is attempting to do with this bill.
The hon. member wondered if I would like to comment. Yet I get
up to comment and now he is saying he has heard enough because he
does not like what he hears. Let me finish. This is my time. It
is questions and comments.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member has
raised such passions. There are so many people who wish to ask
questions. We have to keep it moving.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask my hon. colleague from the Reform Party what he thinks
about the fact that this bill contains no anti-scab provisions like
those Quebec adopted in harmony in 1977.
In a situation where consensus was lacking on this sensitive
matter, even in 1985 when Mr. Bourassa's Liberals were elected, the
Quebec premier refused to give in to the demands of Mr. Scowen, one
of his MNAs, and even a minister at one point.
Later on, in 1991, the Conseil du Patronat, despite a
judgement in its favour from the Supreme Court, backed down in
light of the social peace and harmony that had reigned in Quebec
since the passing of the anti-scab legislation in 1977.
1030
I would like to draw his attention to this letter, which I
received from one of his fellow British Columbians, a Mr. Dave Cort
of Cranbrook, who writes:
[English]
The right to honour picket lines is a simple right that all
private citizens may use should she/he desire. However if you
happen to work for a railway in this country you do not have this
right and must face the humiliation and degradation day after
day, time after time as long as the Canada Labour Code in its
present form forces working class people to cross picket lines.
[Translation]
I would like to hear my hon. colleague's opinion on the fact
that this time the government lacks the courage to amend the Canada
Labour Code in that direction.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
his comments and his question. Unlike the comment which came
from across the way, he certainly brought forward some valid
points. Unlike the Liberals who rise in debate on this very
important legislation, obviously the member has given some
thought to it.
He refers to the fact that he does not see anything specific in
the bill which deals with anti-scab workers. I hate that term.
It is very derogatory.
My understanding is that the bill gives the real power to the
Canada Industrial Relations Board, the CIRB, to decide on the
question of replacement workers. We have some concerns about
that because the board will be under incredible pressure from the
unions. The unions will say that replacement workers in a strike
situation should not be allowed, even if it puts the corporation
in an untenable position, in a position where the corporation
might actually have to close its doors.
I speak not on behalf of corporations when I say that, but on
behalf of the workers themselves. We only have to look at the
situation which developed in Edmonton where the meat packing
plant had to shut down. Ultimately who was hurt? It was the
workers themselves who were out of work and who lost their jobs.
When I speak to this issue it is not only out of concern for the
shareholders and the company, but for the workers themselves.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the
hon. member that on June 2 the people chose Liberals to govern.
When we ran we heard about Bill C-19 on the campaign trail.
There was a great deal of support for Bill C-19. I question the
member being so vehement about it because he must have heard the
same things.
I will read a letter which I received from a farmer out in
western Canada: “Bill C-19 with section 87.7 is an important
first step in preventing labour disputes from stopping the flow
of grain out of our ports. I urge you to facilitate the rapid
passage of Bill C-19 with section 87.7 intact. The future of the
western Canadian grain industry will be very positively impacted
by this step”.
I would urge the member to act on behalf of his constituents.
Mr. Jay Hill: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely amazing,
astounding actually, how Liberal members opposite can distort the
facts and what is in the legislation.
If the hon. member had been in the House during my very brief
speech on Friday, I referred to the fact that there are some
people out there who are lobbying all members of this House to
pass this legislation. Why is that? Because they say it is
better than nothing. I said in my opening remarks that the
official opposition wants to see legislation which is much better
than just better than nothing.
We have serious concerns about this legislation. The reality is
that this bill does nothing to help move grain from the farm gate
to the port. History will show that is where the disruption
takes place. The Liberals brought forward Bill C-19 which
narrowly defines how to settle a dispute problem at the port.
They are holding it up as the be all and end all. It is
absolutely ridiculous and she knows it.
1035
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I should tell you that
I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans. I will therefore be making a 10-minute
speech.
We are debating Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code,
Part I. This bill stems from another bill, Bill C-66, which died on the
Order Paper last spring because, six months before the end of the
traditional four-year mandate, the current Prime Minister decided to
call an election, thus taking some opposition parties unawares.
He saw what was happening in the maritimes and, sensing that the
Employment Insurance Act was not going down too well, he chose to take
the other political parties by surprise. Many bills, including this one,
died on the Order Paper as a result.
He probably made the right decision from an election point of view,
since he kept his majority, although the actual number of Liberal
members is lower.
Despite this delay, the problem with Bill C-19 is the same as with
calling an election early: it leaves some unfinished business.
In many respects, as our critic on this issue, the hon. member for
Trois-Rivières, indicated, there are many improvements, many positives.
But there are also serious deficiencies.
What are these main deficiencies? First, RCMP employees are not
included.
The bill does not address their expressed wish to become subject to the
labour code, to be unionized.
It also falls short of the expectations of federal employees, the
Public Service Alliance of Canada. Government employees are subject to
the Public Service Staff Relations Act instead of the Labour Code.
Incidentally, federal public service employees do not enjoy the
same kind of job security as their Quebec counterparts.
There is not as much job security in the federal public service. One
only has to look, for example, at the cuts being made in the Quebec City
region by the defence department, which are affecting large numbers of
people. Many federal public servants are left to fend for themselves,
because these cuts have been made over a three-year period that will end
at the end of March, with no replacement program and no early retirement
program in place.
What is the federal government doing? It is in the process of
privatizing its public service. The public service has been trying to
continue to provide government services by contracting out, which is a
strange way of doing things. This is not the object of today's debate.
I just wanted to say that, unfortunately, the Canada Labour Code does
not apply to these public servants.
The Bloc Quebecois opposes some of the proposed amendments to the
Canada Labour Code because they do not meet Quebeckers' needs. I do not
know if they meet the needs of people in the other regions of the
country—I will leave it to the other parties to judge—but we want
to protect Quebeckers' interests, even if the Canada Labour Code affects
only 10% of unionized workers in Quebec.
There are three groups of workers in Quebec. First, there are those
who are not unionized and who, of course, are not protected by
collective agreements. Nothing will change for these workers. Then there
are those who are regulated by the Quebec labour code, which includes
provisions prohibiting the use of replacement workers, commonly called
scabs. Finally, the third and last group is those 10% of Quebeckers who
are subject to the Canada Labour Code.
1040
Who are they? They are people working in banks, in
interprovincial and international transportation, airports
obviously and all the airport transportation companies, all the
airlines, broadcasting, telecommunications, harbour operations,
longshoremen and grain handlers.
I would like to take a closer look at the last two categories,
because in the Quebec City region right now there is a strike
that, for a number of reasons, has dragged on in the Port of
Quebec. The same parties may not always be at fault, but it is
recognized that, since the introduction of anti-scab legislation
in Quebec, strikes—and this is important—are 35% shorter than
before. Anti-scab legislation is therefore one way of limiting
the length of strikes. It does not increase, but decreases, the
length of strikes, a very important point.
I was listening to what the Reform member had to say.
Although he is opposed, he said that strikes should not go on too
long. The very benefit of anti-scab legislation is that it
prevents strikes from dragging on longer than necessary. I
remember some long strikes in Quebec, for instance that of the
Ogilvie workers, because they are in the grain sector.
This brings me to another point. Why grain and not potatoes?
Why not butter? Why not other food products considered essential,
such as milk? Why grain? We Quebeckers import grain because we do
not produce enough of our own. We import, or receive I should say,
western grain and then ship it to international markets through our
ports, particularly those along the St. Lawrence Seaway, but we
also use it to raise hogs, cattle, and so on.
So, what has been the result in Quebec City? There have been
cases of violence. The absence of anti-scab legislation affects
not just the length of strikes, but the incidence of violence. I
am not condoning violence. I do not think violence should be
condoned. But the fact remains that, when a strike drags on and
scabs might be or are used, the result is almost always violence in
labour relations.
When violence occurs before a strike ends, there can be physical
effects and problems in terms of labour relations.
It is not a matter of just settling a labour dispute, but of
settling it well. The parties, and this is the advantage of a
negotiated settlement, must reach a collective agreement that they
both will honour following negotiations. The resulting work
atmosphere is better as is productivity. The company is better off
in terms of profits, and the workers are better off, because
greater profits mean better benefits and collective agreements for
the workers.
This should be the aim of the Canada Labour Code.
Instead, measures in these areas remain for the most part unchanged
and a practice that even Quebec employers have shunned since 1977,
that is the use of replacement workers, will be allowed to
continue.
[English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have this opportunity to address this bill. It is
one of the most debilitating bills that has ever entered this
House.
When all the countries in the world are moving away from this
whole concept of forced unionism, forced compliance to join
unions, Canada is going in the opposite direction.
Some 101 countries have legislation to prohibit closed door
operations like unions. Canada and Australia are the only two
countries that look in the other direction. This bill is moving
in the opposite direction to that of the rest of the world.
1045
I listened to the dissertation of the Bloc member in which he
talked about Quebec. Knowing it is coming from the Bloc,
everything is about Quebec. There is nothing about the rest of
the country although they sit in opposition. I will ask the
member from Quebec about his charter of rights and freedoms.
The province of Quebec has a charter of rights and freedoms.
Section 10 states that every person has the right to full and
equal recognition and exercise of his human rights and freedoms
without distinction, exclusion or preference. Section 13 states
that no one may in a judicial act stipulate a clause involving
discrimination. Such a clause is deemed without effect.
In this bill there is a violation of human rights. Part of that
violation centres around the release of names to a union of those
who are working off site. The member over here called those
individuals scabs. I do not agree with that. I think they are
legitimate people trying to earn a decent living. They are
filling a vacancy—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Lévis in response.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I am obliged to respect the
opinions of the Reform member, because he is saying that we in the
Bloc defend the interests of Quebec. I will not deny it. He is
absolutely right.
The Bloc Quebecois is here mainly to defend Quebec's
interests. Our candidates ran only in Quebec—as you can see, we
have no members from Ontario or the West—but we still maintain
a dialogue with people from the other provinces, like those in the
West.
The difference is obvious. I am not saying my colleague does
not represent his part of the country well, but there is clearly a
different mentality.
I have always maintained there were two countries within Canada,
and the Reform member is confirming the fact. Things are quite
different in Quebec.
However, it bothers me to hear people saying that giving more
rights to workers as a group is a step backwards. When we respect
individual rights more, it is in fact a step forward. This is not
what we are seeing in the western world. The 101 countries—I do
not know where he got them from—but, generally speaking, the
number of social measures in OECD countries is on the rise.
On the subject of the Quebec charter of rights, he forgot a
number of sections. He might also have mentioned the United
Nations' charter. It supports freedoms of expression and of
association. Employees of a company have the fundamental right to
join together in a union to collectively defend their individual
rights.
As individuals, they could never manage it on their own.
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, right off I would like to say how much pleasure it gives
me to speak to this bill, especially to two parts of it.
Before my election to Parliament in 1993, I worked in labour
relations for 16 years. I was able to see, through my own
experience, how a labour relations system should be built to ensure
harmonious relations in an organization. This is the aim.
1050
The aim primarily is to ensure the parties agree and that they
provide for mechanisms to settle their disputes. The situation
would essentially be the same in a relationship or in a household
when, in the course of a row, one person brings out the marriage
contract and says it contains no provision for what the other wants
and so the other does not need it or is entitled to it and so on.
It would not be a pleasant situation.
We do not always carry a collective agreement around in our
pockets. What we are talking about is GCS, as we call it, good
common sense, where the aim is to try to reach an understanding.
Unfortunately, there can be hitches, as there are in a
relationship, and if the hitches are major, separation has to be
considered as a possibility.
What I want to say to you is that Quebec is in the forefront
in labour relations, despite what my colleague, the member for
Calgary Northeast, may think when he cites various pieces of
legislation. I am not alone in saying that. Our viewers are
should read with papers on labour relations. Whether they be by
professors from York University in Toronto or Simon Fraser
University in British Columbia, everyone agrees that Quebec is a
leader in labour relations. Should we apologize because we are at
the front? Should we bring up the rear? The fact is, we are in the
forefront.
In second place in the field of labour relations is British
Columbia. I believe that province elected 24 or 25 Reform members
in the recent elections.
My numbers may not be quite right, but there are a good many Reform
members from British Columbia, another province leading the field.
I therefore hope that Reform members who, like us, must be in
close touch with their constituents, will be representing the views
of the majority of those who voted for them. I have pointed this
out at the beginning of my speech so that members will understand
where I am coming from.
Second, I would like to mention a current situation that is
clear proof of a misinformation campaign by our Liberal friends
opposite. As the transportation critic, I was phoned at home on
the weekend by workers governed by the Canada Labour Code. I also
received faxes at the office. Basically, the comments were as
follows.
I will read one of them: “This week in the House, the Bloc
Quebecois said it was not supporting Bill C-19, primarily because
it did not contain antiscab legislation”. That is true. “The Bloc
Quebecois' message was heard loud and clear this week”. That is
true. There is no longer a need to hold up this bill in the
House. That is true.
Another comment reads: “I am worried by the fact that the
Bloc Quebecois still intends to have four or five members speak in
the House when the planned second reading resumes today, February,
March 24. If you must speak in the House at this point, please do
not prevent second reading from wrapping up on Tuesday the 24th.
There is no point in delaying a bill”.
I have many examples of comments that were faxed to me.
What is going on is obvious. I asked the workers who
telephoned me over the weekend why they were calling us. The Bloc
Quebecois is not filibustering over Bill C-19.
We are simply here to express the unanimous position of the labour
relations community in Quebec. As proof, I will quote from the
briefs of three central labour bodies, which were presented during
hearings held in 1995 to examine this legislative reform before the
standing committee responsible for labour issues.
The CSN's brief reads as follows: “To begin with, it should
be remembered that antiscab provisions did not meet with unanimous
approval when they were first introduced in Quebec. These fears
proved unfounded, so unfounded that antiscab provisions are now no
longer questioned, and can be said to be generally accepted in
Quebec”.
1055
According to the FTQ's brief, “it is essential for workers under
federal jurisdiction to be able at last to benefit from anti-scab
legislation. The federal code must be amended to include all
those who work for crown corporations or private companies”.
The CLC stated it was their “firm opinion that employer use of
replacement workers during strikes and lockouts imposes needless
and harmful tensions on labour-management relations”.
Unfortunately, I must reply to them on television because I have
been unable to contact them.
I find the Liberals' misinformation campaign indecent, to say
the least. They have managed to plant the idea into these
workers' heads that the Bloc is responsible for delaying passage
of Bill C-19. We do not agree with the bill, but we are not
filibustering on it.
We do not agree with the bill, particularly because there is no
anti-scab clause. There are five or six points in all on which
we do not agree. Our colleague, the hon. member for
Trois-Rivières, illustrated those points very well yesterday. Why
are we saying we do not agree with this bill because it contains
no anti-scab clauses?
We have a wonderful motto in Quebec. Our motto is “Je me
souviens”, I remember. We remember the United Aircraft, now Pratt
& Whitney, dispute at Longueuil, in 1976.
We remember the numerous and endless postal conflicts over the past
30 or 35 years, when fights actually broke out. We remember the
1973 conflict at Montreal radio station CJMS. We remember the
Nationair conflict, when they kept their flights going by using
strikebreakers.
We remember the Ogilvie Mills conflict, in which CSN members
faced a multinational that was intent on crushing them. We
remember the Royal Bank—the poor old Royal Bank, with its billions
in profits in 1997—and its conflict in Kénogami from 1980 to 1982,
which lasted close to a year and a half.
“Je me souviens”, I remember the strike currently going on in the
Quebec City port. I also remember the recent strike of Air Alliance
pilots, who worked hard to have their rights recognized, while their
employer was renting aircraft from the private market to continue to fly
people, even though the company's pilots were on strike. This is why I
say to Air Alliance pilots that we agree Bill C-19 will correct certain
things, but we also know that, as parliamentarians, we have a
responsibility, which is to condemn injustices and to make sure the
Liberals make good on their commitments. The Liberals use double talk:
they say one thing when they sit in opposition, and another when they
are in office. The Liberal government is talking out of both sides of
its mouth.
Not the Bloc Quebecois. We are here to defend the position and the
rights of Quebec's workers.
It is unacceptable that the 115 000 workers who have the misfortune, if
you will, of being regulated by the Canada Labour Code cannot enjoy the
same protection as those covered by the Quebec labour code.
Why should workers governed by the Canada Labour Code be treated
like second class citizens? This is totally unacceptable.
We know that Air Alliance pilots, who are currently involved in a
dispute with Air Canada pilots, will benefit from the bill. Therefore,
it is out of the question for the Bloc Quebecois to unduly delay this
legislation. As parliamentarians, we have a job to do and we hope the
bill will follow its course. It will be referred to a committee that
will hear witnesses who will submit briefs. The Bloc Quebecois will not
delay the process in any way.
What do we want first and foremost? We want social peace and
harmony for Quebec businesses.
1100
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am rising to speak on behalf of my constituents at
this point. I have three questions for the hon. member.
There have been at least two bills in the last week that have
come before this House, extreme government bills, that have
really polarized the people rather than bringing them together.
The speech which was just given is a prime example of one region
being pitted against another region through this bill, as it was
through Bill C-4. I want to give three examples and three
questions to illustrate what I am talking about.
The Crow benefit was done away with by the Liberal government a
few years ago with the intention that it would promote
diversification. We now have Bill C-19 before the House which
works contrary to that. The diversification is now beginning to
take place. Farmers are beginning to grow products besides the
traditional grains. One example is that they are going into the
cubing of alfalfa, hay. They are making these into cubes. That
is not included in this legislation, so it discourages farmers
from trying to diversify because it is not included. I do not
know if that is an oversight by the government, but it is serious
concern of the people in my riding.
They should not simply have a few products covered by this. It
should include all products. Farmers do not just grow grains
anymore. The government should take that to heart. My question
is should all products not be included?
The second thing the member talked about was strike breakers or
scabs as some of the Bloc people are calling them—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to interrupt
the hon. member but we have only five minutes for questions and
comments. There is another to come. We must give the hon.
member time to respond.
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member only had the time
to talk about alfalfa; however, I would have liked him—but I am not
surprised as you must maintain control over our proceedings—to ask me
about strike-breakers.
I must say that I am much more interested in his opinion on the
anti-stribreaking provision than his comment on alfalfa and growing
alfalfa with other types of grain, or who should be in charge of
applying the labour code. I will just respond briefly to the first part
of his remarks.
Last week, three bills were introduced, showing polarization
between regions of Canada.
It is true that there are many provisions that cause a polarization
between regions of Canada, and that is why we in Quebec consider at any
rate that your country is not necessarily our country. That is why we
say the current system does not work.
Because of the distinct nature of Quebec, we feel there should be
new talks leading to a new partnership between the two sovereign states
of Canada and Quebec. This polarization is becoming increasing clear,
and the current Liberal government tends to prove it.
We are looking forward to the next referendum, when, three days
before referendum day, the rest of Canada will come and tell us how much
they care. I cannot wait to see that. After all the instances of
polarization since 1995, they come and tell us “We love you,
Quebec”.
You mean “We love you, Quebec, when you are on your knees”.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): A 30 second question
and a 30 second response.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
you are asking the impossible but I will try.
One thing that was not addressed in any of the presentations
thus far was the Canadian Industrial Relations Board and its
powers, authority and how it plays out in the whole scheme of
things when it comes to labour relations.
This board is set up much like the immigration refugee board. It
is at arm's length from the minister. Because it is at arm's
length from the minister, who is going to be accountable for the
decisions made by the board?
1105
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond: Mr. Speaker, I do not disagree totally with
the hon. member's position. I think it should be developed during clause
by clause study of the bill. She made an interesting comment.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I thank both members
for their brevity.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I stood up to ask a question but, you will notice that, on your
left, two members of the Reform Party were given the floor. I would have
liked to ask a question, but time is running out. I would have liked to
talk about strike-breakers.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Abitibi will be first on the list when the opportunity arises to
ask questions of the member for Calgary—Nose Hill. Resuming
debate.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today we are debating Bill C-19, proposed changes to the
Canada Labour Code. I hope Canadians watching these debates will
take special notice of what the government is trying to pull on
us here, because this is a very important debate which has
tremendous ramifications for Canadian workers, for the bargaining
units that represent them, for business and job creators and
therefore for the well-being of our society, particularly for the
democratic rights and freedoms which we thought we enjoyed in
this country and which the Liberals are substantially attacking
with this terrible piece of legislation.
This legislation completely violates fundamental Canadian values
and denies basic protections to Canadian workers. This concerns
the official opposition and I hope all opposition parties
tremendously. I hope government members will stand up and demand
that this piece of legislation be taken away from the table of
this House until the flaws and the damages that it would
perpetuate on our way of life and on our democratic rights and
freedoms are rectified.
There is a real difference between this piece of legislation and
the Sims task force review on the Canada Labour Code that
supposedly was the basis for the legislation. The Sims task force
reported. It did its work in 1995 and came out with a report
called “Seeking a Balance”.
The Liberal government is big on the word balance, and in this
case of course the word balance referred to the quest for
balanced labour legislation. Instead we have a piece of
legislation that is terribly unbalanced and which will cause real
harm to the workers of this country, the very people the labour
code is supposed to protect. This is something we simply cannot
allow to happen.
In addition to the violation of the rights of workers, this
piece of legislation will be completely injurious to the economic
well-being of our country. As we all know, industry is key to
the competitiveness of our economy.
Because we have a small population we particularly need strong
and vigorous exports, industries, development companies, all the
kinds of economic activities that add to our national wealth. The
government has done much singing and dancing about its supposed
dedication to creating opportunity in this country. We have
loudly publicized Team Canada visits to other countries, trade
missions to expand export opportunities for Canadian businesses.
1110
Here we have a piece of legislation that has the very strong
potential of completely reversing the whole thrust of this
so-called jobs and opportunity strategy of the Liberal
government.
There is a very real potential that existing jobs will be
exported, not our products, our services, our knowledge or our
technology. Perspective jobs that could have come to Canada will
simply never be realized.
If the labour climate in this country is such that companies and
services find other locations in which to operate, it is very
difficult to get those decisions reversed.
I do not have to tell the young people watching this debate that
there is nearly 17% youth unemployment in Canada. There is a
higher unemployment rate overall. There are Canadians who
desperately need the jobs this labour bill is going to
substantially attack.
We want security for our families, for ourselves and for our
futures. The best way to obtain that security, that quality of
life and that peace of mind is to have stable jobs with stable
incomes. Yet what we have here is a piece of legislation that is
going to make business think twice before continuing operations
in Canada, expanding operations in Canada or even locating in
Canada in the first place.
No wonder there is a tremendous brain drain beginning from our
country to other countries which have a much more balanced
approach to the way labour and labour relations issues are
treated. This legislation is an attempt to completely unbalance
the way these issues are treated and we simply cannot allow that
to happen without strong protest and without urging the Liberal
government to rethink this bad piece of legislation.
There are six areas at least, probably more, in which this
legislation will be bad for Canadians, for their job
opportunities and which will injure the interests of the workers
of this country, the very people this kind of legislation is
supposed to protect.
I could spend more than my allotted time on any one of these
points. I know many of my colleagues will be expanding on these
points. However, I would like to briefly touch on each of them
so that the Canadian public has some idea of why we are so
gravely concerned and so negative about this legislation.
First, as I have already mentioned, the whole issue of
democratic freedoms and process in our country is tremendously
undermined by what is happening in this bill. Secret ballot
voting for those who would represent Canadian workers as
bargaining units is not required. If members can believe this,
Canadian workers in federally regulated industries do not have
the right to cast a secret ballot as to who they really want to
represent them. This violates the whole charter guarantee of
freedom of association because you cannot be truly free unless
you have a truly free expression of your will.
Canadian employees, if they are to have the right to freely
choose a union to represent them in collective bargaining with
their employer, must really have freedom. The only way to ensure
the choice is freely made is through the democratic process; that
is, a board supervised, secret ballot vote in every single
instance.
Shockingly this basic fundamental right which is part of Canadian
traditions, values and beliefs is entirely missing in this piece
of legislation.
1115
Furthermore this totally undermines the legitimacy of our
bargaining units. There are bargaining units and unions in this
country with the best interests of workers at heart which want to
protect them and speak for them and be a voice for them. Yet
without being legitimately chosen according to the democratic
traditions of our country their legitimacy is in question.
Employee wishes will not be validated in the most basic way. The
unions will not be sure they have support and legitimacy. There
will be no way for the unions to know if the workers are behind
them.
The legislation proposes a card certification, that is, if the
union organizers get enough cards signed by workers then they can
be certified. Imagine if members of Parliament were elected the
same way. Imagine that they went from door to door to solicit
voters to sign cards saying “I will vote for you”. Imagine if
the candidate who had the most cards signed was elected as a
member of Parliament. Would we feel in Canada that we had
legitimately expressed our wishes as to who we wanted to
represent us by having to say yes or no to candidate A,
B or C at the door? Would we believe this was
democratic?
That is how the Liberals feel the Canadian workers should have a
bargaining unit selected. It flies in the face of every
tradition we have. It is an absolute travesty of democratic
principles.
I would like to point out that in supervised secret ballot votes
in the jurisdictions in Canada where they are required, the
certification level is very high. It validates unions, rather
than stopping them from being able to do the job of representing
Canadian workers.
For example in Alberta from 1993 to 1994, the board processed
205 certification applications. Out of that number, 116 were
voted on and 74% achieved certification. That is consistent with
what happened in other years in Alberta. In fact there was 100%
employee turnout in 33% of the votes held. The average turnout
for voting was 70%.
Workers in our country want to participate in a free, fair and
democratic manner in choosing who will represent them, but the
Liberals have denied them that in this legislation. It is a
shame.
There is a tremendous privacy issue in the bill. As other
speakers have alluded to, employers can be forced by the board
through this legislation to provide the names and addresses of
off site employees to would be union organizers without the
knowledge and consent of the workers. As well, employers can be
ordered to give electronic communications access to the workers,
again without their knowledge and consent.
This comes from a government which claims to care about privacy.
It is absolutely shocking. The previous justice minister pledged
that by the year 2000 there would be a federal law to provide
“effective enforceable protection of privacy rights in the
private sector”.
The House of Commons standing committee on human rights devoted
the better part of a year in the last Parliament to the study of
privacy rights and visited several cities and heard from scores
of witnesses representing every shade of opinion.
1120
In April as the House was rising for the election the committee
released its report “Privacy: Where do We Draw the Line?”. The
report is nothing less than breathtaking in its scope and depth.
It recognizes that privacy is a fundamental value to Canadian
society and not a “token to be bartered for social and economic
benefits”. One committee member describes privacy as an
associative right, one that is essential to free association,
such as trade unions, free speech and to our very autonomy.
Here we have a strong validation by this very government in the
strongest possible terms of a commitment to privacy. Then what
they actually do, as so often happens with these Liberals, is
they do something to completely and utterly violate the fine
words that they are very fond of quoting.
If your walk does not match your talk, you have a credibility
problem. This government has no credibility now when it comes to
a stated commitment to protecting privacy because it has been
completely violated.
In fact Mr. Phillips, the privacy commissioner told the Senate
committee when it was studying the former iteration of this bill
that the provisions of this labour bill are completely and
absolutely unacceptable.
Where will there be protection for Canadian workers' privacy
unless the opposition, and members of the government who care
about privacy and about that value we all hold so strongly in
this country of individual liberty, force the government to
rethink this bad piece of legislation? This bill is completely
bad.
There is the whole idea of the remedial certification where any
breach of labour practice by employers means that the other side
automatically wins. This calls for judgment calls on the part of
an unaccountable board which until just recently was headed by
someone whose judgment was so bad that he spent $700 of
taxpayers' money on lunches in places like Paris. These are the
people who on behalf of Canadian workers are making decisions
that are based on nothing more than wild speculation. This is
completely unacceptable.
There is also the whole idea of replacement workers. We should
be under no illusions that the unions regard this provision of
the act as a complete ban on replacement workers, given the
board's past history. Where is the balance?
Again, businesses will take note that they absolutely have no
recourse to keep their businesses going in the collective
bargaining process. They are simply not going to feel that doing
business in this country has enough checks and balances,
protections and safety to make it worthwhile for them to locate
in Canada.
Who loses? Workers lose and Canadian young people lose because
we have such an unfriendly atmosphere toward the very things we
need the most, which are job creators and people who take
advantage of economic opportunity. We tie their hands and gag
them with red tape and expect us to have good jobs with good
incomes. It will not happen.
This legislation eliminates the need for unions to report on
their financial status. These organizations deal with millions
and millions of dollars of workers' money. There will be
absolutely no accountability, no regulations, no way workers can
be assured there are checks and balances on the discretion of
these individuals who have statutory rights to require them to
pay hard earned dollars into the organization that they did not
even freely choose. They may not even have wanted to be part of
that organization, yet there is no accountability.
Something too that is very disturbing, and I wish I had more
time to talk about it, are the provisions in the bill that will
effectively allow the minister by order in council, with no
democratic debate and no open discussion, to suspend open
tendering of contracts in the federally regulated sector.
What again could be more injurious to the collective bargaining
process and the freedom of operation in this country than that
provision which effectively says that there cannot be a free
tendering process in contracts in the federally regulated sector?
1125
I appeal to members of this House to look at this legislation.
It violates not only basic democratic principles, not only the
basic privacy of workers but also the very freedoms and
legitimacies of business and labour that give a viable and
dynamic aspect to our economic life here in Canada.
We are not going to rest until these very serious issues for
Canadians are dealt with. This is a bad piece of legislation.
This injures Canadian workers. It violates their rights. It is
going to limit economic opportunities for workers and for all
Canadians. We cannot sit by while this happens.
[Translation]
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to make a comment and ask the hon. member a question on
strikebreakers.
Before she spoke, I listened to the Bloc member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans speak about strikebreakers in
Canada. He said: “I remember”. He mentioned a number of strikes
in Canada involving the use of strikebreakers.
He forgot the latest strike in Canada, the one at Canada Post.
The Minister of Labour refused to use strikebreakers. Now that is
an example of leadership by a Canadian minister who listens to
workers.
Can the hon. member tell us whether she agrees that, during a
work stoppage, the union or management will have to maintain
essential services in order to avoid immediate and serious risks to
the health and safety of the public and whether the legislation
should contain anti-scab provisions, which is the case in Quebec at
the moment, because good relations must be maintained between
employers and unions?
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, in the post office
strike the government had a far heavier hammer than strike
breakers. It had legislation and brought it in to stop the
strike. If that is not breaking a strike, I am not sure what is.
What we need in this whole area is balance. The only recourse a
business has if the business cannot keep going during a lawful
strike is to either let the business go under, as happened just
recently with Maple Leaf Foods, or cave in to whatever demands
are being made in the bargaining process, no matter how
unreasonable or economically injurious they are.
Is that what the member is suggesting happens, that the hands of
one of the parties in the bargaining process be completely tied
behind their back with no recourse? Is that the kind of balance
the Liberals are suggesting happens or are the Liberals just
saying “If it really gets bad, we will just legislate everybody
back to work and we will not have to worry about the whole
issue”?
That is completely hypocritical and it is not going to help good
labour relations and peaceful work experiences in the Canadian
economy for workers.
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my, my, my. Listen to the Reform Party talk about
unions.
Being a labour activist for many years and being part of the
Canadian auto workers for the last 18 years, I have to say that I
take offence with the Reform Party when it says that unions are
not democratic. The fact is they are probably the most
democratic organizations in this country, if not more so than
this House.
I have worked with them. I can guarantee that the CLC for
example which covers 2.3 million unionized workers is the most
democratic organization in this country. If members do not
believe that, I encourage them to spend a weekend with unionized
workers to understand exactly what is going wrong.
One of the most offensive things that happens to bargaining and
to unionized people is when employers have the right to scab
labour. The member was talking about the fact that unions make
unreasonable demands but she does not mention the fact that some
employers make unreasonable demands on their labourers.
1130
We have to argue this point in light of both facts. When we go
to arbitration or any kind of labour relations, which I have done
for many years, the use of scab labour, the threat of scab labour
and the threat of back to work legislation deflate rank and file
workers. It is unacceptable that scab labour is still allowed.
My party and I would definitely vote for any legislation that
outlaws the use of scab labour or forced back to work
legislation.
In my most humble opinion anything that would violate a union is
the Reform Party. We are the only federal party in the House
with a staff that is unionized, has an association and bargains
for its rights in Ottawa. No other official party in the House
allows its staff to organize or unionize. We encourage our staff
to organize and unionize under an umbrella.
I would love to see the Reform Party encourage its staff to do
the same so its staff can argue in balance for fair wages and
fair compensation.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member
had listened to my remarks. I said that the legislation was
completely undemocratic, that it violated democratic principles.
A union can operate very democratically. I am glad to hear the
member has had experience in a union that does. If a union is
not democratically chosen, what democratic legitimacy does it
have in the first place, no matter how it operates after the
fact?
The member talked about unreasonable demands being made by
employers. Unreasonableness is not the sole purview of employers
and management. It is unfortunate but true that unreasonableness
sometimes rests in the bargaining unit, in unions. What will
protect workers in a balanced way from being pulled apart by
these two competing interests? Only balanced legislation.
I see why the hon. member wants to ensure that his union bosses
and the unions that pay most of the money to keep his party going
have full and free flight in whatever they want to do. I
understand why he is flying the flag of the unions and his union
bosses. I can perfectly understand that, but who cares about the
workers?
Who cares to ensure that workers who want to keep their jobs and
good relations with the people offering them economic opportunity
also have some reasonable freedoms and some cards on the table
when it comes to the bargaining process?
The bargaining unit must be free and fair and able to stick up
for the needs of workers. The other side that wants to provide
long term employment and economic opportunities must have some
cards to bargain with. We are asking for balance that protects
workers and serves their interests and not just those of the
union bosses of the NDP.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it might come as some shock to many workers in Canada to hear the
Reform Party supposedly defending them. It is a little
difficult.
The member said that the legislation is in effect a ban on
replacement workers. That is not true. In the legislation there
is a right for a business to keep working, but if it uses
replacement workers to bust a union the board has the authority
to outlaw it.
The hon. member would try to perpetuate that somehow there is a
total ban on replacement workers and it is exactly the opposite.
On democratic principles the board shall have a vote on between
35% and 50% of the cards signed by the rank and file. That is
what they say they want. If there is clear indication that
members want to certify with a union and there are in excess of
50% of the membership signing cards, the board has the authority
to certify without a vote.
Let us be clear. If there is any indication whatsoever of
unfair labour practice on the part of the union organizers
intimidating people to sign cards, the board can either deny
certification or require a full vote. The member should put the
facts on the table so we are clear about what we are dealing
with.
1135
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I know it is difficult
for NDP and Liberal members of the House who have unreasonable
prejudices and misconceptions about Reform to give any credit.
I can assure the people of the country that the official
opposition has a commitment to protecting the interests of
workers no matter what the myths and the misconceptions are on
the other side.
We understand why they want to see everything in black and
white. That is simply not the case. Reformers are workers.
Reformers are union members. Almost half the union members vote
for Reform in federal elections. We are committed to their
protection and that is exactly what we are trying to do.
The Sims report which gave rise to this piece of legislation
states explicitly:
The report also notes:
That is what the report of the government indicated. We need to
make sure there is not a ban on replacement workers. The
legislation, given the history of the board, will lead to that.
If it does, it will cause untold hardship and unfairness for
workers.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-19, to amend the
Canada Labour Code, part I.
In my presentation I will briefly outline Bill C-19, although
that has been well done by members who spoke before. I want to
speak a little about unions and their roles in Canada. Then I
want to focus mainly on the impact of the legislation on the
grain industry. I will focus most of my comments on the impact
of the legislation on farmers and their families and especially
on what is missing from the legislation that will have an
incredibly negative impact on farmers and their ability to access
markets and earn a living.
Other speakers before me have done a good job of outlining the
bill. Some members have done an excellent job in pointing out
some of the flaws in the bill. The member for Calgary—Nose Hill
did an excellent job in making it clear that it is an important
piece of legislation that should not be taken lightly and has to
be reconsidered. She did an admirable job of pointing out some
of the key flaws in the legislation.
I will start by talking a bit about unions. I received several
letters on the bill, as did the member for Guelph—Wellington.
One thing that concerned me in many of the letters was the
negative comments of people against unions. Many said that
unions should not be allowed anywhere in the grain industry. That
is too bad.
I want to say very clearly that unions serve a very useful role.
They have a purpose and they are necessary. If unions are not
present in certain industries, some businesses would take
advantage of labour. That is a concern. It is unfortunate a few
unions that have not acted in a responsible way have turned the
feelings of people against them.
That is an important concern.
1140
To help improve the unions, their effectiveness and their
acceptance, certain things must happen. We need better balance
between labour and management, which is something the bill does
not offer. It also does not offer the protection needed for
innocent third parties.
The bill deals to some extent with grain at the ports and the
moving of grain out of the ports. It affects farmers in a small
way, in a positive way, but it does very little to protect
farmers, people in the forestry industry and people in the mining
industry. It does not protect any of the people affected in a
negative way as third parties. These are the people who have no
say in the unions or in management. Yet their livelihoods are
affected to a great degree as a result of work stoppages.
We need better protection for innocent third parties. A little
later I will focus on one particular group, grain farmers who are
innocent third parties in any dispute which stops the movement of
grain from the local elevator to being loaded on a boat in
harbour.
I would like to talk about farmers and how they are affected by
work stoppages. We have debated several times since we came to
the House legislation concerning labour and management disputes.
Since 1956 we have had nine major disruptions in the grain
industry. It began in 1956 and went right through to 1972, 1974,
1975, 1982, 1986, 1988, 1991 and 1994. There have been over a
dozen other labour-management disputes involving grain handling
and transportation which have ended up in back to work
legislation.
In the 1998 stoppage 30% of the country's grain exports were
stopped dead. How many grain handlers in the union were involved
to stop 30% of the export of grain? There were 69 grain handlers
involved who were unhappy with their working conditions and
stopped the export of 30% of the grain. This affected in a very
personal way the lives of grain farmers who were unable to move
their grain to market. I believe that demonstrates the
seriousness of the situation, the seriousness of the legislation,
and the seriousness of the flaws in the bill which will do very
little to change things.
Growing up on a grain farm, I remember going to school during
times of work stoppage and speaking with friends. My friends at
school, who also grew up on farms, were mostly quite poor. That
was the situation then, although people did not complain about
it. We certainly had the necessities of life. My neighbours and
friends during the times of work stoppages felt the negative
impact in a way that we could see and hear in our discussions.
They were unable to get the new footwear or the new clothes they
needed.
Their parents, in many cases, were struggling to put food on the
table.
1145
These work stoppages are connected with reality. They have an
impact on people's lives. This legislation does not do what has
to be done to stop the impact which these work stoppages have on
farmers and others who are captive to the labour-management
relationship.
Section 87.7 of the bill will make a little difference. The
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour referred to a
letter she had received from a farmer with respect to this
section of the bill. This section will ensure that the grain
that gets to port is loaded on to a ship. That is not entirely
true because more and more of our crops are moving through bulk
handling facilities where that would not be the case. When using
the bulk handling facilities there is no requirement to load the
grain on to a ship.
Furthermore, the definition of grain that is used in the
legislation is the same as that used in the Canada Grain Act.
The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville referred to the fact that
it will not have any impact at all on many farm commodities.
Farmers are trying to diversify. Government has encouraged
farmers to diversify. They can no longer depend on wheat alone.
The farmers have done a good job in doing that. They have
started to produce all kinds of alternative crops. It used to be
that wheat, barley and oats were the main crops on the prairies,
as well as some rye and some flax. Now canola rivals wheat in
terms of the value of the crop being sold. There are many other
crops such as peas, lentils and alfalfa. The member referred to
alfalfa being cubed and sent mostly to Asian countries, but
alfalfa is not covered at all in this legislation because under
the Canada Grain Act it is not a grain.
Farmers have diversified. They have done what they thought they
should do. Their reward with this legislation is that the new
diversified crops which they are producing to earn a reasonable
livelihood most years will sit wherever they are in the system
and will not be moved. They will be denied the income from these
commodities until an agreement is reached between labour and
management. It will take a long time to fix up the system once
it has been thrown out of whack by a work stoppage.
These people are being punished for the work they have done and
the changes they have made to try to better provide for their
families and to make their businesses more viable.
I refer to the letter the parliamentary secretary received from
a western farmer who supports this bill. She quoted from the
letter to show that we should be supporting the bill. However,
part of the quote was really not all that supportive. The farmer
said this is a good first step. To me that would indicate there
is an awful lot more which needs to be done. This is the best
she can do to show support for the bill.
When I am in government I will not be satisfied with simply
providing a good first step. We have to go further.
This is what the Reform Party has been proposing over the last
four years.
We dealt with the first back to work legislation in 1994. I think
it was my second speech in the House of Commons. We had only been
down here a couple of weeks. We talked about ending work
stoppages in the grain handling system right from one end of the
system to the other, not just ensuring that grain that gets to
port gets loaded on the ships, which is all this legislation will
do.
1150
What we proposed is using final offer arbitration to end work
stoppages. We have talked about this on several occasions in this
House and I believe it is a process which must be put in place to
end stoppages such as the frequent stoppages we have seen in the
grain handling system.
In particular, this type of collective bargaining should be used
when there is a third party which is completely captive to labour
and management. In this case there are thousands and thousands of
grain farmers across the country who are captive to union and
management, yet they have no say at all in the negotiations. They
have no place at the negotiation table.
The type of situation we are talking about is for grain movement
but also for movement of coal, potash, forestry products, many
resource areas in particular where they are captive and are
affected very directly, not in some indirect way. Their
livelihoods, their incomes depend on these products moving to
ports.
Yet in this legislation government says for grain, as defined by
the Canada Grain Act, it will make sure it keeps moving as long
as it gets to port. Then the member for Guelph—Wellington has
the nerve to stand up and say they have done a great job and
refers to the farmer who wrote the letter saying it is a first
step. That is completely unacceptable and I think the member
should expect more. It is from her government.
Again, Reform not only critiques legislation, points out areas
that we think are not right and that could be improved, we also
present alternatives.
I want to talk about the Reform alternative in dealing with
commodities where the producers are captive shippers and yet have
no place at all at the bargaining table. What we propose is the
use of final offer selection arbitration.
I am going to work through the process. The purpose of a strike
is to force a settlement. That is the reason that union members
choose to strike from time to time, to force a solution. Final
offer arbitration puts the onus on both sides to reach an
agreement, to arrive at a solution. It allows the collective
bargaining process to take place right through to solution. It
can be used equally by labour and management. It does not favour
one over the other and it can provide a permanent solution and it
is a just and effective dispute settlement mechanism.
It is important to note that this final offer selection
arbitration, in spite of the way it is presented so often by
members from some parties, does not favour one side over the
other. It is not something there for business to use against
labour, not at all. It is as useful for one side as the other.
Here is how it works. If and only if the union and an employer
cannot reach an agreement by the conclusion of the previous
contract, the union and employer would provide the minister with
the name of a person or persons they jointly recommend as an
arbiter or an arbitration panel. Then the union and the employer
would be required to submit to the arbitrator or the panel,
depending on what they choose, a list of matters they have agreed
on.
There is no need for more negotiation on these matters. They
have reached a settlement. In many cases before a situation comes
to strike many of the issues have been settled, so those are
taken out of the process at this point.
They also submit a list of matters still under dispute, and
those are the issues which must be presented to the arbitrator or
to the panel. For these disputed issues, each party would be
required to submit a final offer for settlement.
The arbitrator or panel selects either the final offer submitted
by the trade union or the final offer submitted by business, by
the employer. In this way any work stoppage is completely headed
off.
1155
That sounds like a more complete solution to the problem than
saying if we get the grain to the coast and loaded on the ships,
the system can be backed up in every other aspect. It may take
months to really sort the situation out and it usually does.
There could be sales lost, which there always are, to the point
that Canada now is looked on as an unreliable supplier of grains
and other commodities affected often by labour disruptions.
I think that does sound like a far more reasonable solution to
the problem. It is the solution that we have been encouraging
now for four years, a solution which I do not believe was
seriously considered by this government, and I think it should
be.
I close by saying that farmers and other captive shippers
deserve a mechanism which will ensure them as captive shippers,
as people who really have no place at the table and yet their
livelihoods are affected so directly, that they have something
better than this legislation. They deserve a system of final
offer selection arbitration and that is what Reform will give
them when we have a chance, if this government does not see the
light before then and give it to them.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a moment
to respond to the member. He quoted me a number of times on one
particular letter I read. I could read to him a hundred letters.
I attended hearings with the Minister of Labour in Vancouver. I
heard directly from farmers. Some of them had tears in their
eyes saying to me please pass this legislation, it is important
legislation for them.
It is hard for me to understand the member when he says he is
for the people, that he wants to protect them. These are the
grassroots people, the farmers in his community. I am taken
aback by how callously he throws one letter aside. I am puzzled
by that. They are the very people he says he wants to protect.
I have an excerpt from another letter. This one is from a
farmer in the hon. member's area: “Grain has been used by
various groups as a political football in order to achieve their
own ends. This revision shows recognition on the part of
government of the importance of a consistent and reliable supply
of grain to our international customers. I urge your support for
the bill and in particular section 87.7”.
I can only say to this House these are the things farmers are
telling me. When I am urged by farmers that this is an important
point for them, I think we must respond. As the government we
are trying to do that.
The hon. member did say that the other letter I referred to said
it was an important first step. Sometimes we have to walk before
we run. That is what we are trying to do, but we are trying to
do it with balance and with care. We believe this is a good
bill.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for
her comments and questions and for reading from another letter.
I believe farmers would have tears in their eyes because their
very livelihood is affected by these stoppages that happen again
and again. That is exactly what I was talking about.
As I was growing up, these were my friends and neighbours. I
was in no way throwing aside the comments made in the letter. I
was saying she was interpreting them loosely when she said that
person was saying this legislation solved all the problems. That
is nonsense. It does not.
To the quote from the other letter which said what farmers want
is to provide a reliable supply of grain to their customers, that
is exactly what they want. That is what this legislation will in
no way deliver. All it will do is ensure that if grain makes it
to the coast it will get loaded on the ships.
That is only a short part of travel for grain. It has to move
right from the elevator system to the coast first. That is more
often than not where there is a problem. What good will it do to
have these changes to ensure the ships are loaded when in many
cases the grain never gets to the coast because of a work
stoppage of some type?
1200
We want to put it right through the complete grain system. It
should be in other areas where people have no place at the table
and are affected directly. That is what we want to do and that
is what we are calling for. The letters are important, but let
us interpret them accurately.
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
I congratulate the member for Lakeland on his presentation.
We in the PC Party have a lot of concerns, but this part of the
legislation has not been visited in 25 years. I believe we are
very close, but I think with more consultation we can all come
forward with good solutions.
I have two questions for the member. We have concerns about
replacement workers, as does the hon. member, and about off site
workers and certification not requiring the majority of votes of
employees. As was mentioned last week in the presentation on
their behalf and on behalf of the other parties in the opposition
there were some problems in this regard.
I have a question on work stoppage at ports. We support the
section that would prevent labour disputes, other than those
between employees, stopping the flow of grain at the ports. Would
the hon. member see this section going a little further and make
it apply to elevators in western Canada and in Ontario? Potato
farmers and the pulp and paper industry could be affected as
well.
Another section in the bill, section 7 dealing with the power of
the CIRB to determine seniority, affects pilots. The board has
the power to determine the question of seniority. This is
troublesome for airline pilots as seniority determines their
progression and promotion in ways that are drastically different
from others industries.
To give the board the power to change the practices that are
used worldwide in the aviation industry could cause undue
problems. I would like to know the member's comments on this
section.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the
member. I did not get the last question. I certainly encourage
him to repeat it later.
With regard to support for section 7 which would ensure that the
grain that gets to the coast is loaded on ships, certainly we
support it.
As the member indicated, we would like it to go an awful lot
further. That is why we have been suggesting we should use final
offer selection arbitration to ensure that there would be no work
stoppages right from the local elevator, or whatever type of
gathering facility, through to the loading of the boats and that
the collective bargaining process goes through to completion.
That is what the process allows. That is important because we
do not want to interfere with collective bargaining. We think
that is extremely important.
Our final offer selection ensures that without stoppage there
can be an agreement that makes sense. We know that each party
will present a reasonable offer when they know the arbitrator or
the panel will choose all of one or all of the other with no
mixing and matching as happens in many forced settlements now.
It will be all of one or all of the other. Two very reasonable
offers will be presented. Both will be very close. Whichever
one is chosen, I think both parties will be relatively happy.
We certainly encourage that type of mechanism. It goes much
further. It will not only deal with grain because I do not think
it is fair. My heart is with grain farmers. I grew up in that
type of setting. My neighbours and friends were and still are
grain farmers. It has to go into other industries that are
affected in a similar way. The legislation discriminates
unfairly in that regard as well.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, why
does the hon. member think the NDP has now become a party that
represents big union bosses rather than workers?.
Labour unions now represent over $1 billion in terms of forced
dues. They are massive corporations, indeed one of the biggest.
We see a lot of union bosses sitting in the NDP ranks.
1205
Could the hon. member comment on why the NDP has lost touch with
the workers? Why does it represent only union bosses? Why is it
anti-democratic?
The NDP does not believe in secret mail ballots for union
leadership and having them mandatory across the land. It does
not believe in democratic choice. The NDP government in British
Columbia revoked the opportunity for people to vote in secret
ballots for certification.
Why is the NDP against the worker? What has been the change?
Mr. Leon E. Benoit: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent
question. Tommy Douglas would be rolling over in his grave
seeing what the members of the New Democratic Party are doing in
this regard. He believed in democracy.
Democracy has been taken out of the union movement. The New
Democratic Party seems to be protecting union bosses, as the hon.
member just suggested.
Part of what is not in the legislation is fairness in voting.
When a union is being established every individual should be
given a fair democratic chance to express his or her will.
Clearly the New Democratic Party has abandoned what many of the
founding members of its movement would have supported in terms of
the importance of democracy.
At one time that party was a grassroots party, but clearly it
has become a big union boss party now. That is why many union
members are voting Reform. That movement will continue and
expand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time for
questions and comments has expired and with that the first five
hours of debate have also expired. We will now proceed to 10
minutes of debate with no questions and comments.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, upon reading Bill C-19, we wondered why the
government, which is in its second mandate and which introduced this
legislation in the previous Parliament, is proposing such an incomplete
reform.
Why is it that the federal government, having seen firsthand—during
the last Parliament—what the Ogilvie Mills workers went
through because there was no anti-scab legislation, failed to address
the concerns of these workers, particularly since the issue was dealt
with some 20 years ago in Quebec?
Quebec has its own anti-scab legislation, like British Columbia.
After creating some kind of a balance in the baragaining process, it was
noticed that disputes were not as long and as bitter as they had been in
the past.
We expected the government to do the same with this bill which,
after all, is the outcome of lengthy reflection. Reforms to the Canada
Labour Code are few and far between. The fact is the government did not
make the changes required to make it a code that would truly give equal
opportunities to both sides in the bargaining process.
Today's debate in the House makes me realize that, in Canada, there
are many different societies, many different ways of seeing things. For
Quebeckers, this debate is somewhat unreal, since we settled the issue
of replacement workers a long time ago.
Even the Conseil du patronat decided not to appeal, because it could see
that, in terms of social peace, the situation was good enough, that we
had an acceptable compromise, and that both sides were pleased with the
results.
So, the federal reform should have included a true anti-scab
policy, not the very weak provisions found in the bill. These provide,
among others things, that businesses could be held accountable for
hiring replacement workers only in cases where the union's
representative capacity is undermined.
In other words, any employer can say “I am hiring scabs, but I
certainly do not question the union's representative capacity. Look at
the unions. Their members are picketing. I respect them. I respect them
so much that I have scabs come in to replace them on the job”.
The proposed system would allow and even condone such a situation. I
find it unacceptable.
In my opinion, this is a fundamental reason to oppose the bill,
because it does not have the required provisions to make this an
adequate reform.
1210
The bill contains other provisions that are not so great either.
For instance, under section 108, the minister may interfere in the
bargaining process, by ordering a vote on the employer's latest offers
if the negotiations stall.
This will change the rules of the game.
I think it will put undue pressure on the minister and allow management
to put on the table slightly less generous proposals than those required
to come to an agreement with the union. For the collective bargaining
process to work, both sides must use their respective leverage to come
to an agreement that is a mutually acceptable compromise.
In this case, any chance for a compromise will be swept aside
because management will not have an opportunity to put its best offer
forward since the minister may order a vote. That will directly
interfere with labour relations and could eventually lead to a
deterioration of labour relations within the organization.
There are other aspects that do not seem acceptable to us. No
effort was made in this legislation to provide for the transfer of
administrative responsibilities from the minister to the federal
mediation and conciliation service. There is nothing to this effect in
this bill, which may lead to a subjective interpretation of the various
situations by the minister. This is another important point.
I will raise one last point, which seems very significant to me.
The government would not allow appointments to the labour relations
board to be made from lists submitted by labour or management. This
reflects a lack of co-operation we might have expected.
If the government had agreed to allow the parties to submit joint
lists, when people whom both the employer and the union had agreed
on had arbitration or other decisions to make with respect to
labour relations, they would be on much more solid ground.
The minister did not go along with this position. He
preferred to hold on to his discretionary right to appoint people,
but not necessarily with the agreement of both parties. Obviously,
in cases of disagreement, the minister could have had the final
say. However, if there were the possibility of agreement between
the union and the employer regarding the appointment of certain
people, this would surely have meant that much more credibility for
labour relations officers.
In conclusion, there are a number of aspects of this bill that
should have been examined much more closely.
This is not a government in its first few months in office. It has
been in power for over four years and has seen labour relations
close up. When in opposition, it favoured anti-scab measures that
it did not have the courage to include in the bill.
Clearly, the government has listened to some lobby groups.
This is the downside of how our political parties are funded. In
any event, the odds are that this was what opened certain doors and
left the way wide open in the bill for more painful situations,
situations that are difficult for workers, for their families, and
for employers.
The aftereffects of allowing strikebreakers to be hired, of
making it legal for these people to work to the detriment of those
who took the decision to strike, are important. I think the
federal government would have done better to pay much more
attention than it has to the particular situation in Quebec, where
anti-scab legislation has been in effect for over 20 years. There
are fewer work disputes, they do not last as long, and a better
balance has been achieved. It is an example Canada should have
followed.
When deciding whether or not to opt for sovereignty in the
next few years, this is something Quebec's workers will have to
bear in mind.
When all Quebeckers are governed by the same labour code, they will
have a chance at better benefits than those in the Canada Labour
Code, because Quebec society is different, because it has decided
to have its own distinct relations between workers and employers.
1215
The federal government's bill lacks this significant component
of Quebec society, one of the cornerstones of all labour relations.
I believe all workers covered by the Canada Labour Code who work in
Quebec at the present time would be prepared to accept having the
federal legislation contain the same conditions as the Quebec code.
It is somewhat peculiar that Quebec will have three types of
coverage for workers: the Canada Labour Code, non-unionized labour,
and the Quebec Labour Code for all the rest.
Especially when we see the Canadian code applied to sectors in
which agreement could not be reached, such as Ogilvie Mills, could
an effort not be made to resume discussions and ensure that the
Canada Labour Code will include measures as generous and effective
as those in the Quebec code?
[English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
thank you for the opportunity to take part in this debate on the
amendments to the Canada Labour Code, Bill C-19.
This bill deals with a number of important areas I want to talk
about. There is the fact that unions can be certified without a
majority of workers being consulted or voting. They can also
release the list of employees working off site without their
consent. This bill also deals with section 87.7 which ensures
that grain currently at port at the facility will be loaded over
a 72 hour period in spite of the fact that there may be a
labour-management problem there.
More important, what I want to deal with today is what this bill
does not include. I will come back to the other areas in a
moment. I want to focus my remarks essentially on the missed
opportunity by this government in that it is revising the Canada
Labour Code but it is not including a number of areas that are
essential to ensure the delivery of product to market.
In my critic area which is international trade, I know how
important it is to have credibility in having prompt product
delivery at market so that it can be picked up and delivered to
countries that require our goods and services. Unfortunately that
is not happening very well now. I would submit that the current
labour-management process which has been in place for some time
is not working very well at all.
All too many times when there are labour-management problems
which result in the withdrawal of services or lockouts third
parties are affected very dramatically. I am thinking of grain
farmers in particular. That is one area I know very well. There
have been a number of withdrawal of services over the last 10
years and it has hurt the grain industry to a very big extent. My
colleague from Prince George—Peace River talked about it but I
want to outline this again.
In 1987 there was a work stoppage between the railways and their
union. Five days were lost. Late that same year there was a 42
day work stoppage between the Prince Rupert grain terminal and
the grain workers. There were heavy financial losses. In 1991
there was a 16 day dispute between the Department of Transport
and the public service union. There was also a work stoppage of
20 days in 1995 between the railways and their union.
These are not just figures on paper. These are very real
concerns for people who have product that they want to deliver to
market. It is also a very real concern for countries such as
Japan that are looking to take delivery of a product that it has
bought and sent vessels over to ports like Prince Rupert and
Vancouver but cannot pick up the purchased product because of the
labour-management problems. These labour-management problems
result in more days lost in productivity time second only to
Italy in terms of all of the industrial countries in the world.
This simply is not good enough.
In fact we never make up for that.
1220
The demurrage charges last year at the Vancouver and Prince
Rupert terminals as a result of strikes cost grain farmers in
western Canada something in the neighbourhood of $50 million.
These grain and oilseed farmers are struggling to begin with.
They are struggling because market prices are not that high. They
certainly cannot afford to have work stoppages which affect them
and which they have nothing to do with. They have nothing to do
with them, yet their product is being held back from market which
results in massive costs. Opportunity is lost, but there are
massive costs in terms of demurrage charges alone of over $50
million.
That means the farmers have to pay ships to wait in the
Vancouver harbour while we sort out an archaic system of
labour-management in this country. From a trade perspective it
is hurting our credibility.
When I was involved in the canola industry, Japanese
representatives purchasing Canadian canola made the case on many
occasions that they are going to look elsewhere. I know they have
done that because Canada is becoming known as not being a
reliable supplier of product. They liked the canola. They liked
the quality of it and the good cooking oil it made, but they
could not stand the disruption in service. It has cost us very
heavily.
I also want to speak about a couple of aspects of the bill which
I mentioned earlier.
The Liberal government has been telling the grain sector that it
has done it a tremendous service by putting a provision in the
Canada Labour Code which will allow grain companies to continue
loading a vessel at port in spite of a strike or lockout. That
is a good provision but it is a half-baked measure.
If we cannot get the goods to the terminal, and there have not
been any changes made to the Canada Labour Code which would allow
that to happen, it is a half-baked measure. It simply does not
go far enough. The major disruptions which have taken place in
the past 10 years have meant that grain and oilseed products
could not get to the terminals at all, let alone worry about
those products being loaded onto vessels.
It is a red herring. I admit that it is a small concession, but
it is a lost opportunity to do something about a major problem
which we have in this country.
I want to deal with an aspect of the bill which is quite
troubling and it has to do with the whole business of democracy.
There is a major change which the Liberals are proposing. There
will be a process by which unions can be certified without the
support of a majority of the employees. That is fundamentally
wrong. It tramples on the democratic rights of Canadian citizens
and workers and violates principles which are fundamental to our
society.
There will no longer be secret ballots, a fundamental right
which is enjoyed by every Canadian. We have the right to cast a
secret ballot in favour or against a piece of legislation.
Whether it be a plebiscite or a vote in the House of Commons,
provincial legislatures or municipal councils, the secret ballot
is a fundamental right. We are moving away from the secret ballot
with the amendments which are being made to the Canada Labour
Code. It is a fundamental flaw in the bill and a reason not to
support it.
There is another issue which is along the same lines and is
equally troubling. Workers' names can now be released to those
conducting certification drives without the workers' knowledge or
consent. That does not sound right to me. It seems to me that
if people are being asked to join a union they should know that
their names are being released. It is a fundamental principle of
democracy.
I am concerned by what is not included in the bill. The bill
does not deal with labour-management problems in terms of getting
goods to the market.
It does not deal with final offer arbitration. There is still a
process in the grain sector and which we have seen in Canada Post
on many occasions, where the ultimate result is that Parliament
orders workers back to work.
1225
We believe there should be a negotiating process under
labour-management that takes place until the impending withdrawal
of services either through a strike or a lockout. However at that
point there must be a more enlightened process. There needs to be
a process which says “We have not been able to arrive at this
agreement over an 18 month negotiating period so maybe it is time
to put in our final offer and let us see who is right”. In the
end that is what is happening anyway. The government is ordering
workers back to work and implementing final offer arbitration in
any case.
Let us do it before we lose valuable time in too many days of
lost productivity as a result of work stoppage. The final offer
arbitration solution put forward by the hon. member for
Wetaskiwin, our labour critic, is a very good move to try to have
a more enlightened labour-management process in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to speak today in the debate on second reading of Bill
C-19.
It is the outcome of a long process of reforming the labour
code. I must say, however, that the minister's praiseworthy
intention to reform the code in line with the expectations of both
unions and management is, on scrutiny, nothing more than a cosmetic
change. Simply put, the Minister of Labour, like the entire
government he represents, has only a limited view of what labour
relations are all about.
What the government dares to call an in-depth reform of the
Canada Labour Code represents nothing worthy of consideration, in
my estimation. As a union member myself, I must say I know what I
am talking about. I must admit that the energy the Liberal
government has expended in this bill is very perplexing to me.
I cannot imagine how a government claiming that employment is
the key element of its election platform could ignore anti-scab
measures in its reform. The use of replacement workers during
labour conflicts is, in my eyes, the most heinous act imaginable.
These underhanded tactics trample over the rights of workers
aspiring to better working conditions, and the Liberal government
is closing its eyes to this issue.
I wonder what the purpose of this labour code reform really
is.
All insinuations aside, it does seem clear to me that, by
presenting a legislative measure of this type, the Minister of
Labour is serving interests other than those of the workers. The
Liberal Party of Canada, which represents high finance and big
business, cannot bring itself to introduce a bill that would
improve the conditions of ordinary people.
You are as familiar as I with the saying about not biting that
hand that feeds you. This is what Bill C-19 is all about. The
Liberals could not introduce a bill that would rub big business the
wrong way, because they are the ones greasing the wheels of the
giant Liberal political machine. As I said, the Minister of
Labour's real interest lies more with defending the status quo for
his party's financial backers than with defending honest workers
and respecting their rights.
Of course, clause 42 of the bill does forbid the use of
replacement workers, but the minister is adding an interpretive
framework to this, suggesting that scabs can only be used for the
purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity.
1230
This, in my opinion, comes down to saying that what cannot be
done directly may be done in a roundabout way. The Liberal
government's forte is playing with word meanings and making sure
that the legislation will be so complicated that it will be
virtually impossible to interpret it.
If the Minister of Labour and the rest of the cabinet had
really wanted to demonstrate their desire to reform the labour
code, the matter of replacement workers would have been dealt with
head on, not via political doublespeak which undermines the
credibility of Bill C-19.
The Bloc Quebecois has workers' rights and the defence of
their interests at heart. My predecessor in this House, in fact,
introduced a bill to that effect.
But because of the Liberals' logic, the minister is not inclined to
consider basic issues. Instead, he is coming up with a bill that is
essentially window-dressing, to give the impression that he is acting on
highly charged issues.
Similarly, if the minister and the federal government had wanted to
adequately reform this part of the labour code, they would have looked
at the anti-scab legislation passed in 1977 by the government of René
Lévesque. When a labour dispute occurs, the clarity of the legislation
greatly helps reduce the risks of negotiations breaking down, and of
disgraceful or violent acts being committed. Just remember the sad
episode at Ogilvie's. The federal government's refusal to consider the
issue shows that the minister missed the boat and that the proposed
legislation is just a small step forward for workers.
Bill C-19 also deals with many other issues that are just as
important as replacement workers. They include the establishment of the
Canada Industrial Relations Board, which will replace the Canada Labour
Relations Board. This major element of the reform does not even meet the
expectations of the labour organizations. Indeed, unions have said on
many occasions that they want members to be appointed from lists
submitted by both sides, as is the case for other government
organizations.
This is the only way to make sure the rulings of the Canada Labour
Relations Board are never challenged.
In the past, the appointments made did not always reflect the talent,
the expertise and the knowledge to be expected from people who sit on
this quasi-judicial tribunal. It can be expected that any controversial
decision will be used as a pretext to challenge the competence and the
impartiality of some members of the board.
Of course, the minister says he will consult. Indeed, it is
important to do so when appointments of this nature are made. However,
there would be much more of a balance if the minister used lists
submitted by both management and the unions, to fill any vacancy that
may occur. Again, the minister is merely pretending to act, much to the
disappointment of all those concerned. He is keeping all the powers
relating to appointments, in spite of the problems that this is likely
to create.
The last point I would like to cover before I finish concerns
another major omission regarding the claim by the Public Service
Alliance of Canada. It has asked to be removed from the
application of the Public Service Staff Relations Act and instead
to be covered by the Canada Labour Code.
Why did PSAC and its members make such a request? Because
under the Public Service Staff Relations Act they do not have the
right to negotiate important provisions, such as job security,
which is covered by legislation other than that governing labour
relations. This is the case as well for protection against
technological changes, job classifications, appointments,
promotions and transfers.
Such a change in response to the request of the Public Service
Alliance of Canada would also prevent the unfair treatment of a
category of Quebec workers. Three categories of workers will be
protected by the Quebec legislation prohibiting the use of
strikebreakers: those not unionized at all and those that are and
are covered by the Canada Labour Code, who are unionized but have
no protection against the use of scabs.
1235
In conclusion, Bill C-19 represents another fine opportunity
missed by the Minister of Labour. It could have been an
opportunity to truly protect workers against the hiring of
strikebreakers. It could have been an opportunity to act on the
request of the Public Service Alliance of Canada to withdraw from
coverage by the Public Service Staff Relations Act.
The minister could also have put an end to discrimination
against certain categories of workers in Quebec, who, depending on
the legislation that governs their working conditions, will no
longer be entitled to the same protection.
In short, as I have said, you do not bite the hand that feeds
you. That is no doubt what the Minister of Labour was thinking in
formulating Bill C-19.
He goes out of his way to avoid taking any advantage away from
those who annually contribute so generously to Liberal coffers.
Bill C-19 is nothing more than a lot of razzle-dazzle.
Workers will not be fooled. Neither will the Bloc. No one is
going to support a bill that, despite the fancy words of the
government, does so little to protect and improve workers' rights.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, as I
rise today to speak about Bill C-19, I want to continue with a
theme introduced by my colleagues this morning. I thought one of
the best ways to do that perhaps would be to read from a letter I
received from a constituent to set the scene. I know one of the
members on the Liberal side read from a letter, so I am going to
do exactly the same thing.
This letter came to me from a very concerned constituent who has
done quite a lot of research into Bill C-19 and is particularly
concerned with the democratic aspects of it.
If I can quote a bit from the letter just to set the scene: The
Minister of Labour introduced Bill C-19 on November 6, 1997, and
this bill contains most of the amendments that were incorporated
in Bill C-66. Regrettably the revised version contains the same
defects its predecessor displayed. The result is that the changes
that would have made the labour code a better enactment are more
than offset by the provisions which perpetuate undemocratic rules
and introduce measures which will make Canadian enterprises
subject to federal labour legislation less competitive”. Bill
C-66 was from the last Parliament.
This letter highlights three of the deficiencies in detail,
although it mentions quite a number of them. I would like to
outline a couple of those. The minister has not followed the
recommendations of the Senate standing committee on social
affairs, science and technology when it studied Bill C-66 when it
was before the House previously. The recommendations made really
suggested that this federal legislation should give the right to
workers to participate in secret ballot representation votes to
determine whether a union would represent them.
Provincial labour legislation in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario,
Nova Scotia and Newfoundland currently mandates secret ballots.
It is only the NDP in B.C., when it recently came into power,
that removed this right to secret ballots. That caused quite a
lot of outrage in B.C. not just from business people but from
union people as well that this ability to have a secret vote had
been removed.
Frankly, it amazes me that the NDP in B.C. and the NDP in this
House, which both claim to be democratic, are not up in arms
about this taking away of the democratic right for members in the
union to have secret ballots.
It is hard to think of anything less democratic than placing
union members in a position of being unable to cast their votes
in a secret ballot. It leaves members of unions wide open to
coercion by overzealous union bosses and to delegates who perhaps
are getting carried away with a particular cause and just force
people, through fear or otherwise, to vote in a particular
manner.
1240
Imagine if we ran federal or provincial elections that way.
Canada would be the target of sanctions and criticisms from the
entire free world if we were selecting people in ballots that
were not secret.
I wonder how Liberal members can sleep at night knowing they are
going to be voting with the instructions of their whip for
something so undemocratic. The NDP members should be outraged.
They should be jumping in their seats at this blatant attack on
democracy against their union members. They have already
demonstrated, by their interventions during the speech by the
Reform member for Calgary—Nose Hill this morning, that they are
not interested in even trying to defend the rights of the
workers, the people they claim they are representing.
As one of my colleagues mentioned a little earlier, Tommy
Douglas would be turning in his grave if he could see the NDP
today. Tommy Douglas represented my riding back in the
mid-1960s. Tommy Douglas was the person who achieved the highest
ever percentage of votes in the riding of North
Vancouver—Burnaby. He actually got 52.4% of the vote.
The second highest was achieved by Reform in the 1997 election
when I got 49.9% of the vote. While it was still 3% away from
the record set by Tommy Douglas, it does show an interesting
progression in my riding, to digress for a moment. How it started
was with the NDP in the mid-1960s, then it moved briefly to the
Liberals, then back to the NDP, then to the PCs and now to
Reform. It is certainly interesting that Reform today is
representing a greater percentage that has ever happened since
the Tommy Douglas days. He would be turning in his grave today
if he could see what is happening with the NDP failing to fight
for worker rights in this bill.
Could it be that the NDP likes this bill because it virtually
guarantees forced union certification, which in turn means the
compulsory extraction of union dues from workers, which in turn
helps fill the coffers of the NDP? Maybe the NDP is not as
democratic as it likes to make itself out to be. Maybe the NDP
does not actually stand for New Democratic Party; maybe it stands
for the no democracy party.
I will return to the points in the letter because it is a
communication from the real world, outside of this place. It
details problems that are in Bill C-19, this hastily thought out
legislation that is being rushed through. There is really no
need to rush this through. It has been 25 years since this
labour code has been revised. There really is no need to rush
through these sorts of provisions.
I quote one of the objections listed in this letter:
The new bill gives the Canada Industrial Relations Board the
jurisdiction to certify a trade union that does not have majority
support where “but for the unfair labour practice, the union
could reasonably have been expected to have the support of the
majority of employees in a unit”.
Frankly, no union should ever be certified without a secret
ballot. If there are problems in the way the procedure took
place leading up to the ballot that should be dealt with in other
ways. To take away the right of free ballot for the workers, to
punish the employer, is totally ludicrous. I cannot imagine why
or how this government could think that was justified in any way.
To quote again from the letter:
Neither the Canada Industrial Relations Board nor any other body
has the capacity to rationally discharge a task which involves
nothing more than wild speculation. If an employer has committed
an unfair labour practice, the board should sanction the
employer, not deprive workers of the democratic right to vote on
the wisdom of union representation.
The dangers associated with this type of law were demonstrated
when the Ontario Labour Relations Board, ignoring the will of the
workers, certified the United Steelworkers of America as the
bargaining agent for workers in a Wal-Mart Canada Inc. store in
Windsor. The workers had voted 151-43 against union
representation.
1245
Imagine if we were conducting our votes in Canada that way.
Imagine if we had a federal election where the chief electoral
officer could decide that he did not like the outcome in a
particular riding and that he would appoint some other candidate
to be the MP other than the winning candidate, thereby taking
away the right of the voters in order to rectify some perceived
wrong that occurred during the campaign.
It is absolutely outrageous. If that were to happen in a true
federal election situation, the chief electoral officer would
order another vote and therefore return the power to the people
who have the vote, not take away that right. That is another
good example of why this is a terrible provision in the bill.
Just to remind the House, the Senate Standing Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology presented its report on
Bill C-66 on April 25, 1997. The government has had plenty of
time to review and think about the report.
The report stated that the committee had “concerns about
whether the recent use of a similar clause by the Ontario Labour
Relations Board in the Wal-Mart case is in fact an appropriate
use of such a measure”. The letter writer shares this
reservation, keenly aware of the danger that this provision
represents to the democratic values Canadians hold and cherish.
I would like to finish by mentioning that all of us in the House
should be fighting the bill tooth and nail. It tramples on the
democratic rights of Canadian workers. It violates the
fundamentals of freedom of voting in society. It somehow
suggests that cards are a reliable indication of a worker's
intent in the certification process. Just the fact that we can
get someone to sign a card is sufficient proof the person will
also support the forming of a union in a ballot. It is an
absolutely ludicrous provision.
When the legislation is passed it will eliminate the need for
unions to report on their financial status. This is
unbelievable. That would put them in the same class as
charities, which the House is just beginning to recognize needs
to be dealt with, where they are totally unaccountable for the
way they spend their money and are unanswerable to the people who
give them money to do their work.
I could speak about the bill for some time but I see my time has
elapsed. I will now leave it for my colleagues to take up the
charge.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to stand in the House and not just ask
questions but make further comments with reference to some of the
questions I asked earlier.
The whole matter of unionization of labour law has to be
challenged in a much more significant manner than what has been
happening in the past. Every country in the developed world
except for Canada and Australia, as I indicated earlier, has
dropped compulsory unionization of its members and the forced
payment of union dues. They have legislation, for the most part,
to support that kind of a position. It actually is a protection
of rights and freedoms of the individual.
It is funny that Canada has not embarked on this matter in a
very substantial way. However, listening to the comments of the
Bloc, the NDP and certainly the Liberals, since they are the ones
who put the bill forward, there is no intention on the part of
the government to proceed in that fashion. Yet the economics of
it would indicate this is the direction our country should be
going in its labour law.
Earlier I asked the Bloc member a question on the Quebec charter
of rights and freedoms. I know it may not have a direct impact
on the bill, but there is still a charter argument in the bill
which I will get to in a moment.
The Quebec charter of rights and freedoms provides the following
basic rights. Bloc members have been arguing for their province
in this regard. It also applies to the rest of the country
because we too have a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
that guarantees freedom of association as a fundamental freedom.
That choice should be whether or not an individual would want to
become part of a labour movement and be subject to its rules and
regulations.
1250
The Quebec charter of rights and freedoms provides these rights:
Every person has the right to full and equal recognition and
exercise of his human rights and freedom without distinction,
exclusion, or preference.
Section 13 states:
No one may in a judicial act stipulate a clause involving
discrimination. Such a clause is deemed without effect.
It continues:
It is important to recognize that the “freedom of association”
in section 2(d) includes freedom from compulsion to join a
particular union on pain of losing one's job.
I have gone through Bill C-19 and have noted that a lot of
emphasis is placed on the formation of the Canadian Industrial
Relations Board. It appears the Liberals like these particular
types of boards. They actually take away the responsibility of
the minister to address the major concerns that may arise within
that portfolio. In this case the board is a quasi-judicial body.
It is not unlike other quasi-judicial bodies the Liberal
government likes setting up.
The board will be the final arbitrator or the final decision
maker. There will be no recourse for employers if 35% or 40% of
a shop's employees decides to unionize.
The Minister of Labour will wash his hands just like all other
ministers do when they have nice quasi-judicial bodies set up in
their portfolios. They say “No, fellow Canadians. It is a
quasi-judicial body and is independent of any interference from
the political arena”.
They have already made their neat little choices as far as who
is going to sit on the board. Board members will make any
decision they want and there will be no recourse for those who
are unhappy. That is a travesty of justice.
Members are selected for the board. They do not even have to be
Canadian citizens. They will be sitting almost like judges and
making decisions that impact on those in the labour market. There
should be some provision in the bill that board members at least
be Canadian citizens. They will have the power to make the
decisions much like judges do even though they will not
necessarily have to follow the rules of evidence.
They will be making decisions on certification, for instance. If
a trade union wants to certify, the board may grant it that
certification in spite of the fact that there will not even be a
majority. Again the employer will have very little to say about
it. Or, the board, making a decision on behalf of an application
by the union to determine what the employer is doing with off
site workers who are not unionized, could be compelled to send a
list of the names and addresses of the workers. That will be
done without the consent of the employee, the off site worker.
That again goes far beyond the mandate any board should be
given. I have seen some of the actions within unions when things
heat up. They are possibly jeopardizing the security and safety
of the individuals or their families. I do not think that is
appropriate at all. If something did in fact happen, who will
advocate on behalf of off site workers? Who? I do not know of
anyone.
That in itself is a violation of privacy and a violation of the
right of the off site worker to remain anonymous if necessary. No
board should have the right to pass that information on to
someone else.
1255
In closing I would like to make a very brief comparison in the
privacy area where information on the names and addresses of
individuals will be freely passed on to a union representative
and could jeopardize the security and safety of those people.
I point my finger at the Liberal government. It feels no
compunction in releasing to the community the names of sexual
violators that may be released from prison and jeopardize the
security of children or people living in that community.
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. With all due respect to the member and to the House, we
are talking about the Canada Labour Code and not about sexual
offenders.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is certainly a
very appropriate intervention.
Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Speaker, if the member from the NDP
had been listening he would recognize the comparison I was making
when it comes to the protection of the privacy of individual
names that would be released to union representatives. For those
who jeopardize the security of our communities the government
releases the names of sexual predators to the community so that
children will not be abused.
Mr. Rob Anders (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, ding
dong, the union is calling. That is the way this should lead
off. Bill C-19 allows for union organizers to get the lists of
off site workers.
What does that mean for all those people who right now are
operating in a contract capacity or outside the certification
process? Their names, their addresses and their contact
information will be given to union organizers. Those organizers
will have access to other information available on the
corporations' computers.
You ask, Mr. Speaker, by whose consent this is done. It is done
by the consent of union organizers but certainly not by the
consent of the employees and not by the consent of those
employers.
This is all at the wish of the Canadian Industrial Relations
Board. I would like to delve right into this if I might. The
bill would change the name of the Canada Labour Relations Board
and create this new beast, the new Canada Industrial Relations
Board.
What are they really doing? What is the whole purpose behind
it? They will give it a little more power and they will give it
a little less accountability. As a result it creates a whole lot
more abuse when the two of them are coupled. That is exactly
what they are doing with a whole lot of other tribunals and
boards.
They try to remove the minister from accountability and remove
the ability of members in the House, including Liberal members,
to make accountable these quasi-judicial boards or these
governmental bodies. They make them less accountable. The
members have less ability to rein in these powers. Yet the
boards have more and more power put on their plates.
I would like to speak to some of the things the new Canada
Industrial Relations Board will be able to do. Point number one
is that it will be able to certify a union without the majority
of employees actually taking a ballot, without their majority
support.
When we think about that, it is a fundamental violation of
democracy, the idea that a majority of employees does not have to
vote in favour of certifying a union for it to be certified at
that site.
I will refer directly to some of the important decisions that
have happened regarding this issue and that a card based system
is notoriously unreliable.
The Canada Labour Relations Board has said so when confronted
with two unions both claiming majority support in the bargaining
unit. People can refer to Communications Workers of Canada v.
Communications Union Canada, 1979.
1300
The workers' cards are no more reliable when the contest is
between union representation and no union representation. This is
a great example. Two unions tried to claim majority support by
cards. Each union said that by this card based system it was the
appropriate union to certify the site. That is a clear
demonstration of why the card based system does not work. Two
unions can abuse the same card process and each can say that it
has majority support. That is one fundamental flaw with the card
based system.
The other fundamental flaw is that you can actually have a vast
discrepancy in what is considered proper majority support. I
refer to a recent Ontario Labour Relations Board decision with
regard to the United Steelworkers of America as the bargaining
agent for the workers in Wal-Mart Canada. The workers voted 151
to 43 against union representation. That is 151 were against
union certification and 43 were in favour of certifying the
United Steelworkers of America. Yet the Ontario Labour Relations
Board went ahead and decided the steelworkers would represent
that site.
Not only is there competition between unions that would violate
this system, where multiple unions claim they have enough cards
to sign people up, but there are also unions winning
representation in places where there is no legitimate vote and
where a majority of people have decided against having the
steelworkers as their representatives. How is that democratic?
It fails so many fundamental tests of what this law should pass.
However, the Liberals are going to endorse this legislation which
would give these powers to this governmental organization, the
proposed Canadian industrial relations board.
It does not make any sense to give these types of powers. You
can quote me on this one and I hope others do. No government and
no quasi-judicial body asks for powers that it will not use or
does not want to use. This case is just like the Canada Wheat
Board case. It is asking for powers that it will use and abuse.
I have given two perfect examples of how those powers have been
abused by similar quasi-judicial bodies and it will be done by
the Canada industrial relations board, mark my words.
Those Liberal MPs across the way will have to justify to their
constituents, businesses and employees that they have passed this
bill. They will go to their MP offices and say “Look what has
happened to me. Look what the new monster that you voted in has
done to my business or to my job”. Those MPs will have to
justify it.
Not only do they not require majority consent and not only are
they tossing out the whole idea of a secret ballot, which is
fundamental to the concept of democracy, the union organizers
will be given information on off site workers against their will.
Those workers will have no consent whatsoever in this process.
There is no provision in this bill that people must be asked if
this should be done, no provision for obtaining their consent.
It will be done against their wishes.
I have heard people in the House today refer to notice of a
strike or a lockout. They have referred to the grain handling
situation. They have said that a 72 hour notice of a lockout or
a strike will be able to protect grain shipments in Canada. If
only every union obeyed the law and never had a wildcat strike.
Unfortunately we have seen too many times that a union has
violated the laws and has held a wildcat strike without a proper
vote from the workers for the go ahead.
We have seen unions go against their own workers' wishes and
order them out on the picket lines. This happens because we do
not have sufficient penalties to ensure those people do not
violate the law. There is no sequestering of assets. There is
no provision for putting union bosses in jail if they order
people on to the picket lines without an appropriate vote.
Once again the Liberal government has failed. It has failed
because this is not an appropriate guarantee. It has told
farmers in western Canada that this legislation has a provision
to ensure their grain will not be held up in the ports. It is a
misrepresentation.
It is pulling the wool over the eyes of Canadian farmers.
1305
Indeed the government cannot guarantee it because this law has
no teeth and without teeth it will not be able to enforce it.
Wildcat strikes can and will occur under this legislation. There
is little or no provision for ensuring they do not. The grain
can still be held up.
Replacement workers are effectively banned by Bill C-19. I am
sure that Liberal and NDP members will say this is not the case
because it will only happen when representational capacity is
affected. If we look at other quasi-judicial bodies which have
made rulings on these things, indeed they have determined that
representational capacity means any situation.
Once again when a quasi-judicial body asks for a power, it will
use it and it will abuse it. Therefore we can bet our bottom
dollar that replacement workers in this country will not be able
to cross picket lines. Operations will not be able to continue.
Employers will not be able to use employees who are not unionized
to continue their activities during a lockout or a strike. Shame
on the Liberal government.
There are some other things in the bill which really get my
goat. One is the fact that the definitions are so vague. This
will give significant powers to the Canada industrial relations
board.
Bureaucrats have designed the legislation and Liberals have not
accurately read what it will mean. They have not looked at the
fine print. They do not recognize that the bureaucrats have made
the legislation vague in certain areas so as to give more powers
to the quasi-judicial body which it can then abuse.
I would like to touch on another area which has been mentioned
today, that being the whole idea of representing a majority of
constituents or union members. Forty-six per cent of all union
households in Alberta want voluntary unionism. They believe they
should have a choice as to whether they are forced to join a
union or pay dues. Sixty-two per cent of all Albertans are in
favour of that concept.
New Democrats speak about making sure they represent the
majority of their constituents, but it is they who make up the
party which only represents big labour. It is over a billion
dollar industry in this country and the NDP only represents the
top echelon of the labour movement. It no longer represents the
workers.
This bill does not provide for secret ballots for union
elections. It has no provision for democratic choice. I could
go on and on. The bill is flawed. It has to be reviewed. It
should not pass as it stands.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to commend the hon. member for Wetaskiwin for his
comments on this bill, as well as the hon. member for Calgary
West who just outlined the problems with this bill.
I will focus my speech on an alternative and why I think this
alternative can work. I understand that government members are
arguing that it will not work. I will offer suggestions to them
as to why it will work. It will save this country billions of
dollars every year. I would ask them to listen carefully. They
have probably heard about this in the House before. I am talking
about final offer selection arbitration.
I practised labour law. Prior to that I worked in industrial
relations for a forest products company where we faced these
problems every day. For five years I was involved in the
negotiating process.
To put it in a nutshell, final offer selection arbitration is
when two parties, party A and party B, have both made
their very best offer. They have come to an impasse. If they
cannot reach a negotiated settlement the arbitrator is forced to
pick only A or B, nothing in the middle. One of the
two must be picked.
Final offer selection arbitration does not hamper the
negotiating process. In fact it helps it. There will be more
agreements negotiated between unions and employers with this type
of a process than without. When all the benefits of this process
are realized I believe it will be welcomed.
The parties know what will happen if they do not reach a
negotiated settlement. They will come to the table with the most
reasonable offer, an offer which is close to where it should be.
Instead of coming to the table saying that they want $35 an hour
when they would really settle for $20, they are going to start at
a very reasonable settlement because they know that if they reach
an impasse the arbitrator is forced to pick one or the other. If
they are too far away from what really should be the appropriate
settlement, the arbitrator is going to be forced to go the other
way. That is fundamental.
1310
I have heard criticisms from the government side saying that
this is not just about money, that so many other issues are
involved in negotiations. There is everything from medical, to
pensions, to benefits, to working conditions, to hours and also
to salaries and compensation. I would suggest to members on that
side of the House that it is the entire package the arbitrator is
forced to accept, either A or B, nowhere in between.
The union and the company comes to the table with a package. It
is not strictly money we are talking about. Both parties will
come to the table with a package that is very close to reasonable
because obviously if they are at an impasse, they will want their
package to be selected. If they are way out in left field or
right field their package will not be selected.
Let me give an analogy of how well this works. The civil courts
in British Columbia have somewhat of a similar system. The
principle is the same on how it works. Two people who are going
to sue each other file a lawsuit in the supreme court. Let us say
someone sues someone else for $100,000. The person being sued
disagrees and offers $60,000 to settle out of court. The parties
get together before they go to trial and make offers back and
forth. If they are unable to reach a settlement prior to going
to court, then in the court the justice makes a decision and the
party on the wrong side has to pay a premium of the court costs
of the other party.
In other words, if the person who was being sued for $100,000
made an offer for $60,000 and it was not accepted, and the judge
made a decision of $59,000, then because they did not accept that
offer the other party would have to pay their court costs because
they were right. I know I might be losing some people in this
analogy but the bottom line is that it forces the lawyers when
they are making their offers to be as reasonable as possible to
what they think a judge would impose. By doing that they come
very close together and quite often they settle. Exactly the
same principle would work here in final offer selection
arbitration.
By doing that the unions and the companies will come to the
table with very reasonable packages because they do not want an
offer imposed on them. Worse off, if their offer is so far out
of range, they know that the arbitrator will be forced to select
the other offer without question.
I would ask the government members to listen to this. Look at
what happened just in the last year, the number of strikes we
have had, the lost productivity and the lost opportunities for
this country. It was in the billions of dollars.
We need to have legislation that would assist companies and
unions into a negotiated settlement. I emphasize this because it
does not take away anyone's right to a negotiated settlement. The
only thing it changes in the whole process is the very last step
of does an arbitrator impose a settlement if that situation is
reached, or is there a mechanism in place.
This mechanism would force the arbitrator into choosing one or
the other, as I have stated. Therefore, the parties would come
together and it would be a better situation. It is such a simple
system and would offer so much to our economy. Our economy is
growing and it would grow that much quicker. The lost opportunity
is in the billions of dollars.
I would ask members of the government to revisit this bill. It
is amending the Canada Labour Code and the government has missed
probably the one biggest thing that it could do to assist the
unions, to assist companies and more importantly to assist
taxpayers and Canadians to make sure that we are not losing this
economic opportunity.
Instead, as we have heard from previous speakers, this is going
against the principle of democracy with the secret ballots and
replacement workers.
It is beyond me why this government is addressing all these
issues. It will be nice to find out what it is really up to.
1315
Again, this is to offer a constructive alternative. The
criticism from the government side is that this will not work
because we are not just talking about money. I emphasize that
this is not just about money. This final offer selection
arbitration or whatever name we might want to give it is the
entire package that the parties bring to the table. This
principle has been tried in other systems. It has been proven
that it works. It will force parties to come very close to the
middle. I ask the government to take a look at this.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make some submissions
with respect to Bill C-19.
This bill was introduced in the last Parliament. Because of the
election call in June the amendments to the Canada Labour Code
died and here it is again in the House.
I have been listening very carefully to the comments that have
been made by a number of speakers. I share some of the concerns.
I am particularly impressed with the comments made by the member
for Saanich—Gulf Islands with respect to this notion of final
offer selection arbitration.
Before I get to that, I wish to comment with respect to the
concerns I have with the bill itself. This is second reading of
Bill C-19. Second reading will send this bill to committee for
consideration. I am sure that interested parties from across the
country will come forward at the committee stage. Hopefully some
of the deficiencies in this bill will be corrected at the
committee stage and there will be a willingness on the part of
the government to listen to some of the concerns.
I note that the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour is
present in the House today. I know her to be an extremely
hardworking member of Parliament. She is open minded. She is
receptive to change in order to improve bill. I am sure that
rather simply defending some of the inadequacies in the bill she
will play a leading role in convincing the government, the
minister in particular, to correct some of these deficiencies.
As a democrat believing in the principles of democracy, I have a
concern that this new named board, the Canada Industrial
Relations Board, would be able under certain circumstances to
certify a union even though a majority of the workers in that
bargaining unit are opposed to certification. That does not make
any sense at all.
If we are living in a democracy, if we believe in democratic
principles, surely those principles should apply to the
workplace. If a majority of those in a workplace are opposed to
the formation or the certification of a union, then it simply
should not happen. Frankly, I am surprised as well that certain
members of this House who often talk about choice, who often talk
about democracy and accountability, would be opposed to honouring
that very basic principle of democracy, that the majority of a
group should be listened to. I have concerns about the provision
in the bill that allows for certification even though a minority
of the workers would want certification.
Secret ballots are important as well. We all know that in union
drives and in certain circumstances in labour relations members
of a particular bargaining unit are afraid to speak out, to
express their true wishes. It seems that secret votes would take
away the ability in certain circumstances for coercion to take
place.
Those are two of the major concerns I have. I am sure the
parliamentary secretary will be addressing those concerns.
With respect to the comments of the hon. member for
Saanich—Gulf Islands, I know it is a position that is shared by
a good number of members in this House which is a constructive
proposal on final offer selection arbitration.
1320
One of the problems we have with labour relations in this
country, and other jurisdictions share the same problem, is that
it is adversarial in nature. It is we versus them. The system
has developed over the years where employers are fighting against
employees. It is wrong. We have come to a point in the history
of this country and in the history of labour relations where we
ought to find mechanisms and methods of removing some of the
adversarial nature from labour relations.
This adversarial component is further entrenched in the
legislation. Section 9(1)(c) refers to the establishment and
organization of the Canada Industrial Relations Board. It says
“not more than six other members of which not more than three
represent employees and of which not more than three represent
employers”.
In the make-up of the board we are further entrenching this
adversarial nature so that we need union people on one side and
employer people on the other. That is not a healthy situation.
The people who ultimately suffer, the people who are ultimately
penalized are the public as well as workers. The damage that
ensues to companies in certain circumstances and in certain
strike situations is irreparable. We know of cases where
companies have literally had to close down because of labour
strife.
This notion of final offer selection arbitration is an attempt
to diminish the adversarial nature of labour relations in this
country. As the member points out, the negotiations continue to
take place. That is very important. Both sides will negotiate.
When an impasse is reached, rather than shutting down the doors
of the factory or utilizing that ultimate weapon on the part of
labour, the strike weapon which does not help anyone, both sides
are forced to submit themselves to final offer selection
arbitration. That would require, as the hon. member points out,
both sides to be reasonable. They have to be reasonable in their
positions. If they are unreasonable they run the risk of the
arbitration panel selecting the package put forward by the other
side.
We all know that some of the very basic principles of
negotiation is that you ask for far more than you expect to get
with the view to finding common ground at some point. What this
does is eliminate these ridiculous positions that are put forward
on the part of labour and on the part of management. What is
requires them to do is put forward a package.
This makes good sense because this would avoid or eliminate a
great number of strikes. We are dealing with a very small
percentage of the labour force. This code applies only to
federally regulated industries. It does not apply to
provincially regulated industries. This notion of final offer
selection arbitration could apply not only to industries that are
federally regulated but to provincially regulated industries.
I hope the government will consider this proposal being put
forward by members of the Reform Party and other people in this
country. It makes sense. It is in the public interest. I hope
that at committee the government will be persuaded that we have
to find mechanisms and ways to remove some of the adversarial
nature of labour relations in this country.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Cypress Hills—Grasslands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in knowing the source of this bill I was quite
astonished to find that there are a couple of minor points in it
that actually represent good legislation and that I approve of.
1325
One is that there is provision in there for 72 hours notice of
strike or lockout. This would allow shippers of perishable goods
to get their materials out of harm's way and it would also allow
ships to leave port rather than being trapped there in the event
of a harbour strike. I like that in the legislation.
I also liked the provision that provides for maintenance of
service in vital industries where public health and safety are at
risk. However, over and beyond that I have not found much in the
bill to like. There are some things in it that make me almost
apoplectic because this bill, no matter how you cut it, tramples
on the rights of Canadian workers.
Right at the top of my list is the privacy issue. During a
certification drive under this bill, employers will be required
to give union organizers lists of their employees complete with
addresses and telephone numbers, without workers' consent.
The Canadian privacy commissioner, Mr. Phillips, has described
this procedure as totally unacceptable. But that has not
encouraged this government to back off. Anyone who thinks that
having his or her name on a little list is not a threat to a
worker should look back a few weeks to the attempt in British
Columbia at recall where everyone who signed a recall petition
had to provide his name and address. There are documented cases
in northwestern British Columbia of workers being afraid to sign
on to these recall petitions because their names and addresses
would go directly to the union hall. We know where you live. This
is not the way things are supposed to operate in Canada.
Another anti-democratic feature of this bill is that secret
ballots are not going to be a requirement for certification.
Quite the contrary. Filling out cards will be regarded as ample.
They get enough cards signed, they are certified. No vote, no
problem. If someone does not sign the card, maybe they know where
that person lives. This is not the way unions are supposed to be
run. This sounds like the way the Teamsters operated in the bad
old days before the ordinary workers regained control of their
union.
It gets worse. This legislation opens the door for certification
by the Canada Industrial Relations Board of a union on a work site
without majority support. I do not suppose this should be a big
surprise when we consider that this bill was drafted by the same
political party that brought Hal Banks into Canada to whip our
Canadian seamen into line a few years ago. Democracy forever.
As the member for York—South Weston has previously stated, this
bill preserves the adversarial nature of labour negotiations. In
fact, it entrenches it even more deeply than it is now. The
government should have had a bill to bring labour relations into
the 21st century, not back into the 19th.
It could have had provision in this bill for final offer
selection arbitration. I am sure Mr. Speaker will know more about
final offer selection arbitration before this day is done than
virtually anyone else in Canada. Very few of us have failed to
mention it because it is important. This is a tool to keep labour
and management honest. It is a took to smooth the negotiating
process. Do away with this us or them idea, let's hit the
bricks, fellows, let's give it to them.
Ordinary, sensible, reasonable people can sit down and sharpen
their pencils. If they reach an impasse, each one puts down their
final offer.
This is the best they can do; that is the best they can live
with. They hand it to the arbitrator who then selects. That
ends the dispute at least until the next negotiations come up. It
is the civilized way of doing business. It does not detract one
iota from the rights of either workers or management, but it
benefits the general public and, from an economic point of view,
benefits workers.
1330
They do not have to hit the bricks. They do not have to live on
strike pay for weeks on end and possibly in the end get nothing
for their efforts. It is settled. It is done. Everybody ends
up a little unhappy but everybody ends up with something they can
live with.
This is the wave of the future in labour relations. I think it
is coming. It is an idea that in due course will take over
labour-management relations. I can only hope it will be
reasonably soon. I deeply regret that no provision was built
into the bill for federally regulated workers.
Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a pleasure to follow my colleague in
discussing the bill before the House today.
When we look at all the different forms of legislation there is
a lot of good things in them. If we look at the bill, it is
essentially the same as Bill C-66 which died in the Senate after
there was so much furore in the Senate over some of the issues
that were brought forth.
If we look at the administration of the code, the Canada Labour
Relations Board becomes the Canada Industrial Relations Board. It
is a nice, simple change in name. I do not know how much it
costs in the bureaucracy to do that. Somebody dreamt that one
up. It is sort of harmless although it probably cost a lot of
money.
The terms of the chair and the vice-chair are reduced from 10
years to 5 years. We can accept that. Any government
appointments that are reduced in numbers are certainly better
than those that are increased in numbers.
There will be a maximum of six permanent members, three
representing employers and three representing employees. That
sounds fine. Then it says “and as many part time members as the
cabinet deems necessary”. That surely scares me because we see
defeated Liberal members like Anna Terrana getting appointed to
the Immigration Appeal Board.
The many people who were defeated in the last election and the
many people who do favours might get appointed as part time
members to this board. It is a nice way for them to make a few
extra bucks.
Another thing I noticed in the bill, besides amending part I of
the Canada Labour Code it revamps or renames the Canada Labour
Relations Board and relinquishes Statistics Canada from the
current method of reflecting union data. Anything that reduces
Statistics Canada cannot be all bad either. As I said, there are
some good things and some bad things in every bill, but this one
certainly has some bad ones that stand out very clearly.
The representation successor rights section says that the CIRB
can certify a union without support from the majority of
employees. This provision exists in a number of provincial codes
used recently in Ontario to certify a union at Wal-Mart, despite
the fact the majority of the employees voted against it.
That type of legislation is more than scary. I come from a
province that is very heavily unionized. A lot of the unions
work very hard and do a good job. I had a restaurant at one time
that was unionized. It operated very successfully. However,
when I look at a majority not being able to get what it wants, it
scares me. When I look at a majority overruling the minority, it
scares me.
Certainly the House would not be the same if we voted the same
way the bill will allow votes to take place. We are all elected
with a majority, one more than the guy next to us. That is what
counts and is what we should look at in the legislation.
What really scares me in the bill is that the CIRB can order an
employer to release to a union representative a list of names and
addresses of employees who work off site. This clause has been
tightened up but there is no provision for obtaining the
employee's consent. This clause absolutely astounds me.
Canadians watching the debate today will hear members on this
side talking. They will wonder why nobody on the other side of
the House, nobody on the socialist side is talking.
To allow a name to go out to anyone without the person's consent
is beyond comprehension.
1335
My colleague who spoke before me made a great representation on
what happened in British Columbia with recall legislation. We
heard stories from reporters that a lot of people were leery
about signing it because their names would be made public. When
we vote our names are not made public. To vote in privacy is a
privilege and a right we all have. Yet the legislation will
allow someone to take a list of names and addresses, go to their
homes and tell them what to do. It is unbelievable that any
government would bring in this kind of legislation.
I cannot help but relate the bill to other issues. As the
immigration critic for my party I asked the minister many
questions. I asked her about a triad leader in British Columbia,
a major gang leader in the world who came into Canada illegally.
The government eventually proved that. It hired a consultant to
go to Los Angeles to find out how he got into the country. It
admitted that he got here and should not have got here. After
the government spent all that money to find out why that triad
leader got into Canada illegally, I asked the minister a question
in the House. I said “When are you going to get rid of him? He
has a big house in Vancouver. His family is living there. He
got into Canada illegally. He is a criminal”. The minister
said to me “I cannot answer that question because of the Privacy
Act”.
This man was in our country illegally. He was a crook. There
was a drive-by shooting at his house. However the minister could
not tell the people of Canada why he was here because of the
Privacy Act.
Under the bill an employer will be compelled to release to union
representatives a list of names and addresses of employees. Where
is their privacy? We give privacy to one of the biggest crooks
in the world, who is not even a Canadian citizen, yet citizens of
the country do not have enough privacy to keep their names and
addresses from a union leader. We should be ashamed this clause
is even in the bill.
I asked the same minister a question a few weeks ago about a
couple of Haitians in Montreal who gang raped a young girl. I
said “What about deporting those people?” The minister said
“I cannot answer that question because of the Privacy Act”.
These two men gang raped a woman and we cannot get information
about them because of the Privacy Act. Yet in this bill—and I
will continue to repeat it—the CIRB can order an employer to
release to the union representative a list of names and addresses
of employees who work off site.
What kind of rights do those Canadian citizens have? What kind
of rights do landed immigrants have? Their names can be given
out to anyone, whether it is a union representative or a
political party. The next thing we will do is demand that
everything be made public. Our names will be published no matter
what we do. We will all go nuts, but the mail will get through.
In my constituency my postmaster said “If you want to get rid
of junk mail, just put a sign on your mailbox and you will not
receive it any more”. That is my right. If I do not want junk
mail I do not have to receive it. In this case someone can walk
into the employer's office and say “Give me the list of your
employees. I am thinking of unionizing your shop”. That is
against the Privacy Act.
I do not understand why government members are not speaking. We
have asked the question and it will be asked again many times
during this debate. How can we allow anyone to walk into a
company and ask it to release the names and addresses of its
employees without affecting the Privacy Act? We use the Privacy
Act to protect crooks and thieves.
There is a newspaper article which I would like to quote
regarding a warrant that went out in Canada. The article is by
Tom Godfrey of the Toronto Sun. It states:
The RCMP have broadened their hunt for a violent immigrant who
was granted Canadian citizenship even though he was jailed for
killing a man in Texas.
Fitzroy Ellsworth Dixon, 31, a landed immigrant from Jamaica,
has been sought on a Canada-wide warrant since last December,
said Sgt. Paul McIsaac. Police stepped up the search yesterday,
releasing a mug-shot of the fugitive.
McIsaac said Dixon was convicted in Texas in 1992 for drug
trafficking and involuntary manslaughter and jailed for five
years.
“Apparently, he shot and killed a man in a fight over drugs”,
McIsaac said.
McIsaac said Dixon was released from a U.S. federal prison in
May 1994 and ordered deported to Jamaica.
Dixon, instead of waiting in the U.S. to be deported, returned to
Canada and applied for citizenship, apparently failing to mention
his criminal record or that he had been out of the country for
several years, McIsaac said.
Dixon was granted citizenship in February 1996, and the police
didn't find out about his criminal past until he was arrested in
Toronto for robbery in December. He was convicted but released
on probation.
1340
I asked questions about Mr. Dixon, and because of the Privacy
Act we were not able to talk about him.
The people listening out there might be afraid because there was
a warrant issued for this man. I am very happy to say he was
arrested in the city of Toronto yesterday. Hopefully the
minister will deport him. However, when we ask questions about
him, it is the Privacy Act. We cannot talk about Mr. Dixon, the
murderer, the drug man, because of the Privacy Act.
Yet what does this bill say? The CIRB can order an employer to
release to a union representative a list of names and addresses
of employees who work off site. It should be an outrage that
anyone would even think of putting this kind of legislation
before the House of Commons.
We all know every day that we debate in the House the freedoms
of people, the right to privacy in Canada. Nobody should be
allowed to have my name and address or wherever I work. It is
not their right. It is my right to my privacy when I go to my
home. If I want to publish my name and address I do that.
Even as a member of Parliament we can use our constituency
office as an address. We do not have to use our home address. A
lot of members do but it is their right and freedom to do so. In
this situation they are taking away the rights of all Canadians
with this legislation.
In conclusion, I know there will be amendments so I will speak
later.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Kelowna, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
privilege to address the House on Bill C-19, to amend part I of
the Canada Labour Code. Some eloquent speeches were made this
morning.
I could not help but think of an experience I had during the
last election campaign. I went to a door that was answered by a
young person. We started talking about the upcoming election. I
asked him whether he would be voting this time. He said “Yes,
this is the first time I will vote. I am proud of it. I really
want to vote”.
We got talking about what the various parties represented. That
young person was aware and thrilled about the ability of being
able to vote. He was on fire because he wanted to get involved
in the election. That right to vote is being denied in this
legislation to the workers of Canada.
The purpose behind labour legislation is to create harmony
between employers and employees, harmony that will result in
increased productivity and greater efficiency and will create the
goods and services we need. That is what this legislation is all
about.
For some reason or other built into the legislation are not
principles that create harmonization, not principles that create
harmony in working together, but rather principles of
confrontation, principles of invasion of privacy, principles of
denial of the democratic process. It is an indictment of a
government that proposes this kind of legislation.
It goes beyond simply denying a vote. It goes into the details
of allowing a quasi-judicial board with no political or
administrative accountability to do this. I read directly from
the bill. “The board” that is the Canada Industrial Relations
Board “may certify a trade union despite a lack of evidence of
majority support”. Is this not absolutely amazing?
Imagine the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada saying that even
though the people did not vote for the Liberals they would still
be the government. It would be terrible. It is hard to imagine
how anyone would dare to do such a thing.
Then it goes into substituting a card for a ballot.
My hon. colleague from Vancouver West has just mentioned how easy
it is to intimidate someone by going to their door and asking
them to sign a card. We also heard the conflict that can exist
when two unions are in competition with each other to get the
members to come to them and they use the same process to prove
that they are the winners. That is the kind of situation we are
in at this point.
1345
Interestingly enough the bill provides for and insists that
there be a secret ballot when the members decide to strike, or if
a group of employers want to lock out a group, that requires a
secret ballot. Is this not interesting, that which will affect
my life as a member of a working union can be subject and open to
everyone, but when it comes to whether or not I am going to vote
for a strike it has to be done by a secret ballot. There is a
complete contradiction of principles here.
I want to move to an area that was touched on so eloquently by
the member for Vancouver West, which is the business of privacy.
This list of names is now obligatory. For what purpose will that
list of names be used? To send out information? To appeal to me
to become a member of this particular group? To be bombarded
with unsolicited mail from people we do not want to hear from?
We have no way of knowing how this list of names will be used.
We know that if the power is granted to get this access to
information, how the information is used becomes completely
unpredictable. The points are very clear in the act as to how
the list of names shall be used. It states that the list shall
be used for purposes relating to soliciting trade union
memberships; the negotiation or administration of a collective
agreement; the processing of a grievance; or the provision of a
trade union service to employees. That is what it shall be used
for.
However, there is no guarantee that the list will be used like
that. It may be used for other purposes. The access has now
been given to private information. Once private information is
out there, it can be used in whatever way the individual who has
it chooses to use it. That is frightening. The potential for
abuse and misuse is severe.
Let us look at another provision in this act which relates to
the same thing. It comes in clause 54 where the following
provision is made:
For greater certainty, the following may not be disclosed
without the consent of the person who made them:
It is not everything that can be made public, but there are
certain people who are protected from invasion of their privacy.
The first one is:
(a) notes or draft orders or decisions of the Board or any of
its members, or of an arbitrator or arbitration board chairperson
appointed by the Minister under this Part; and
(b) notes or draft reports of persons appointed by the Minister
under this Part to assist in resolving disputes or differences,
or of persons authorized or designated by the Board to assist in
resolving complaints or issues in dispute before the Board.
One could argue that is privileged information in the actual
negotiating process. And it is correct to say that. That
information should be private and it should be confidential. But
what is more secret, what is more private and what is more
confidential than the names of myself and my family and the
address of where we live? It seems to me that has the same
significance as do the notes and draft orders from the
negotiating process. The bill fails on that point.
Another area has to do with the replacement workers.
I refer to clause 42(2):
No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall use,
for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's
representational capacity rather than the pursuit of legitimate
bargaining objectives, the services of a person who was not an
employee in the bargaining unit—
1350
Half an hour ago a Liberal member said that this can only be
used in the case where the employer is deliberately using the
replacement worker to undermine the union. The member made the
point that if an employer is using a replacement worker for that
purpose he cannot use that person and therefore this bill is
absolutely sacrosanct and absolutely pure and great. Is that not
a very interesting interpretation of this clause.
How will anyone ever be able to show clearly and without any
doubt or equivocation that the person was hired to do one thing
and one thing only, to destroy the union? It is totally
irresponsible and ridiculous to make a claim like that. That is
the protection. That protection has such a big hole in it you
could drive an 18 wheeler through it and you would not even know
you had gone through the hole. That is what has been done here.
That is an absolutely irresponsible clause. I do not think it is
a good clause but even if it were, the way it is written makes it
absolutely impossible to enforce.
I will discuss the accountability of the proposed board. A
Liberal member made the point that the board is accountable, that
it must submit an annual report to the minister. Guess what the
annual report contains. It will be a statistical report that
contains an analysis of those statistics. Is that not
interesting. It will tell the minister how many members there
were over various years. There is no requirement for the board
to report how much money it gathered, whom it gathered it from,
how it was spent or to whom it was sent. There is absolutely no
accountability whatsoever. My interpretation of the statement
that the annual report will make the board accountable is
nonsense. It does nothing of the kind. We take very strong
exception to this.
I want to end on a positive note. We want harmony between
employers and employees. This will make us a competitive nation.
It will build our businesses and employ our young people. In
order to do that, my colleagues and I in the Reform Party have
advocated the following phrase which members will have memorized
if they have been listening: We need final offer selection
arbitration. That is what we need. That will give people the
kind of harmony we need. It will avoid the confrontation that
makes people fight. It will bring them together to say “Let us
do this together”.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is too bad this bill which was brought in by my hon.
colleague has come before the presentation of the national
budget. I assure the House many people in Canada consider the
passage of this bill as being more important than the important
budget that is coming down today. The passage of this bill
determines how negotiations will take place in the Canadian
workplace.
It is tremendously interesting to note that the Privacy Act
suddenly takes on a different meaning. When we passed Bill C-4,
the wheat board bill, we absolutely had to have it. It is a
public company, a government organization, but we will seal it
up, we will lock it in, put the zipper on it. It required
privacy.
Now we have something where privacy is thrown out the window
depending on who you want to benefit. The benefit is if you want
to protect the government organization, you want to protect the
government business, you invoke the Privacy Act, but if you want
to destroy something, you open up the Privacy Act.
1355
I would caution workers, I would caution companies to take a
very close look at this bill. Even if it does get passed, which
we on this side hope it does not, I hope they will be able to
come back to the government and say “You are violating a human
public principle that we have had in Canada since 1867. You are
about to wipe it out ”. The government pretends it does not see
it in this bill.
I note that it says this board will have six permanent members,
three from employees, three from employers and the interesting
thing, as many part time members as who deems necessary? As the
minister deems necessary. And how many are necessary, 20, 25?
Let us see what the political decision is.
We have the labour on one side and the employers on the other.
Twenty people are brought in from the government to tip the
balance. The government will then determine whether it goes in
favour of the employer or the employee. And that is fair? I
cannot understand this government saying this bill is
non-partisan when it opens the doors for more partisanship than
we have every had in labour relations.
The unions supported me in the June 2 election. The reason they
supported me was they understood that unless there was the type
of policy which Reform is trying to introduce, their future was
just about nil.
I refer to the clause that the board can end a stoppage if
public health and safety are at risk. The largest union in my
constituency is the coal workers who supply the coal to the
Saskatchewan Power Corporation. They can never go on strike.
They could let the 72 hours go by because supplying hydro would
be considered in the interest of public safety. The union
workers who mine the coal could never be in a strike position and
could never be in a strong negotiating position because all the
government has to do is declare that it is not in the best
interests. We take away the right to strike from the largest
union in my constituency. And we say that the bill is designed
for modernization?
The Speaker: My colleague you still have a little time
left. You will have the floor if you so want it after question
period.
[Translation]
It being almost 2 p.m., we will now proceed to Statements by
Members.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ELI AND LAURETTA MARTIN
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is my honour to rise in the House of Commons today to pay
tribute and congratulate Eli and Lauretta Martin who recently
celebrated their 70th anniversary.
Mr. and Mrs. Martin, both in their 90s, reside in their own home
in Elmira in my riding of Waterloo—Wellington.
Mr. and Mrs. Martin have a long and distinguished career in the
retail and service sectors. In addition both have done extensive
volunteer work in their community. They have taught their
children the importance of hard work and the value of give and
take in a relationship.
I ask all members in the House to join me in congratulating Eli
and Lauretta Martin on their 70th anniversary. We wish them many
more years of happiness together.
* * *
REFORM YOUTH CONVENTION
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have just come from the Reform youth convention. They wrote the
top 10 reasons why the Liberal and Tory organizers are afraid of
the Reform youth convention.
Number 10: They do not know how to deal with people who care
about policy and not just power.
Number 9: Their idea of a young person is someone who should be
seen and not heard.
Number 8: They are afraid of new ideas.
Number 7: Because they cannot handle four snack packers let
alone 260.
Number 6: Because when young Reformers talk about future
senators, they are talking about a hockey team not a bunch of
bagged out, slack jawed party hacks parked in patronage heaven.
Number 5: Because Reform youth want to see a balanced budget
that offers real hope, not a transparent attempt to buy their
votes.
Number 4: Because when Liberals and Tories see a Reform youth
convention, they can envision a parliament with 260 Reform
members in it.
Number 3: Because the national Reform youth convention means a
convention with young people from every region in every part of
this great country.
1400
Number 2: Because the PMO has not figured out yet how to pepper
spray a convention.
And the number one reason why they are afraid of a Reform youth
convention: Because a Reform youth convention kicks butt from
coast to coast to coast.
* * *
ESTONIA
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today thousands of Canadians of Estonian heritage and
Estonians worldwide are proudly celebrating the 80th anniversary
of their country's independence.
Dominated since the 13th century by Danes, Germans, Poles, Swedes
and Russians, Estonia was established as a modern nation state on
February 24, 1918.
However, the freedom was shortlived as the onset of World War 11
brought about renewed occupation by both Russian and German
armies.
With the end of the second world war, Estonia continued to be
occupied by the former Soviet Union, an occupation that Canada
refused to recognize and an occupation that lasted until August 20,
1991 when Estonia's independence was finally re-established.
It was between the end of the Second World War and 1991 when
most Canadians of Estonian heritage arrived in our country as
political refugees.
Long a friend of Estonia and the other Baltic states, Canada is
proud of the contribution that those of Baltic heritage have made
and continue to make to our society.
* * *
NEW BRUNSWICK
Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw (Moncton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last week this House recognized the 33rd anniversary of the
Canadian flag. But today I rise to mark the 33rd anniversary of
the flag of the great province of New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Our flag was approved by royal proclamation on February 24, 1965,
just days after the Canadian flag was proclaimed.
As New Brunswickers, we are proud of our province's flag, and of
our national flag. It was therefore with pride that, in the same week in
1965, we saw not one, but two flags flying side by side.
[English]
The New Brunswick flag is modelled on our coat of arms adopted
in 1868. The ship is a symbol of our past and also a source of
inspiration for our future.
This flag shows that New Brunswick is open to the world and
increasingly connected to the global economy.
[Translation]
I ask all members to join me in paying tribute to New Brunswick—
The Speaker: The hon. member for North Vancouver.
* * *
[English]
PROSTATE CANCER
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
employees at Canada's second largest telephone company, BC Tel,
have raised more than $240,000 for prostate cancer research in
just a few months.
Fund-raising for prostate cancer research is their special
project for 1997-98, and I am honoured to recognize their efforts
exactly two weeks before MPs and senators get the chance to
attend an information session on prostate cancer on the Hill.
One man in eight will get prostate cancer during his lifetime,
and almost as many men die from prostate cancer each year as
women die from breast cancer.
I urge all MPs, senators and the media to come and hear research
urologist Dr. Martin Gleave on March 10 and to ensure, if they
are male, they take the PSA blood test for prostate cancer which
will be available on that day.
Thank you to BC Tel employees for their fund-raising efforts
and thank you to Abbott Diagnostics for helping sponsor the
information session and PSA testing on the Hill.
* * *
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
Ms. Elinor Caplan (Thornhill, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
statement today is a response to those actively lobbying
against the appointment of Neal Sher as an adviser to the
Ministry of Justice war crimes unit.
This government has had the courage to do what few others have
and that is make a commitment to move on the deportation and
denaturalisation of those convicted of war crimes.
Canada must not be seen as a haven for Nazi war criminals and
others suspected of having committed war crimes 50 years ago or
last week.
Our actions will speak louder than words and by appointing Neal
Sher, a man with a proven record, this government is taking
action.
Neal Sher's appointment as special adviser to the war crimes
unit of the Ministry of Justice is good for Canada's
international reputation and I hope that he succeeds in doing a
very important job for Canada and Canadians.
* * *
STREPTOCOCCAL GROUP A
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to inform this House and the Canadian people about
the tragic death of a young boy in my riding. Kyle Martin was
only five years old when he mysteriously took ill at school.
He was taken to a local clinic and then to Credit Valley
hospital. After waiting for several hours in emergency, Kyle was
flown by air ambulance to Sick Kids hospital where he passed
away.
A healthy, happy young life has been lost to a disease known as
streptococcal group A, causing toxic shock. This is related to
the flesh eating disease, with no known cause and no cure.
1405
Kyle's father, along with the community, has established the
Kyle Martin Fund at the Members Savings Credit Union in Toronto.
The money will be used for research at Mount Sinai hospital.
The response from the community has been incredible and I ask
members in this House to join me in extending our sincere
sympathy to the family and to contribute to the Kyle Martin Fund.
Let us all help put an end to this tragic disease.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have in our Senate a senator who finds the notion of an elected
Senate offensive. He said he would resign if a Senate election
were called.
We have in our Senate a senator who said that he thinks
elections would be bad because it would mean that the Prime
Minister could no longer appoint his friends.
We have in our Senate a senator who said that he would not have
the energy to run in an election if one were called.
We have in our Senate a senator who said that he does not
represent his region but instead does what his party tells him
to.
Premier Klein, call a Senate election. Senator Ghitter, happy
retirement.
* * *
[Translation]
ANDRÉ NADEAU
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, February 19
marked the end of one of the most prestigious and challenging dog
sled races in the world, the Yukon Quest, in which Quebecker
André Nadeau, from Sainte-Mélanie, in my riding of Joliette,
competed.
This is a 1,647-kilometre race from Whitehorse, in the Yukon, to
Fairbanks, in Alaska. The mushers and their dog teams must fight their
way through horrifying blizzards in Arctic cold and climb over peaks up
to 4,000 metres high.
André Nadeau was a first-time contender in this race. He came in
second, with a time of 11 days, 15 hours and 13 minutes, roughly four
hours behind the first-place winner. Thirty-eight 14-dog teams started
the race. André Nadeau led the race until Mr. Lee, a veteran musher,
passed him a few kilometres before the finish line.
I want to acknowledge this feat of strength and courage and extend
my heartiest congratulations to André Nadeau and his helpers, Louise and
Michel, and to his 14 dogs, of course.
* * *
NAGANO OLYMPIC GAMES
Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us
remember all our heros. The games in Nagano have ended and Canada
has distinguished itself by leaving with 15 medals. Our athletes
went to Japan to fulfil their Olympic dream.
A young woman from Sainte-Dorothée, in my riding of Laval
West, saw her Olympic dream come true. Tania Vicent won the bronze
in the 3,000-metre short-track speed-skating relay.
On behalf of all my constituents and of all Canadians, I wish
to congratulate Tania and thank her for treating us to such an
extraordinary performance. We are all proud of her.
* * *
FORMER BC MINE WORKERS
Mr. Claude Drouin (Beauce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the
Canadian government announced an assistance program for former
workers of the BC mine in Black Lake in the Thetford Mines region.
The targeted wage subsidy program being used is funded
entirely by the Government of Canada, at a cost of $1,750,000. The
government will pay all employers interested in hiring laid-off
workers up to 60% of their wages, with no ceiling.
In the past, a number of former workers of the Davie shipyards
in the riding of Lévis took advantage of this program. It enabled
them to return to the work force and renew their pride in
contributing to economic growth.
The Government of Canada is not just sensitive to the
situation of workers who lose their jobs, but is working hard to
find solutions that will restore pride and quality of life to
Canadians experiencing difficulty on both an economic and a human
level.
In closing, I would like to wish the former workers of the BC
mine all the best.
* * *
DON CHERRY
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Don Cherry's
insults at Quebeckers on the CBC seem to have had little effect on
the vice-president of the CBC's English network, who thinks that
Mr. Cherry is being paid to express his opinions.
What tolerance all of a sudden according to the CBC's ethics,
when a very different decision was made in December 1989 in
connection with Pierre Bourgault, whose remarks on a public affairs
program were deemed inappropriate.
The issue is not about justifying or approving remarks whoever
may make them, but whether the CBC has a single code of ethics.
[English]
Don Cherry's broadcast sneers at Quebeckers are unacceptable and
should not be tolerated by the CBC. For all those in English
Canada who share the point of view of Don Cherry, please answer
the following question. What has become of the people who loved
Quebec so much in October 1995?
* * *
1410
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, let us pass out the pom-poms and tutus to the Reform
Party. It is hopping up and down, excited about its new role as
cheerleader for the Liberals on the MAI. “Give me an M,
give me an A, give me an I”, say Reformers. Let us
have a debate on the MAI as long as it does not involve the other
side, the Reform Party says.
Yesterday the Reform member for North Vancouver admitted he
preferred Florida's private health care system to the public
system in his home province. In Canada poor people can get
medical treatment. The member for North Vancouver slams that as
no good socialist medicine, not deserving of protection under the
MAI.
We need a reinvestment in health care so that everyone can get
good care quickly. We need to scrap the MAI which would kill our
health care system. We need the Reform Party to throw away its
pom-poms and rah-rah cheers and act like a loyal opposition.
Support money for medicare and nix the MAI.
* * *
[Translation]
AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil—Soulanges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday Air Canada and Canadian Airlines were singing the praises
of the liberalization of air services between the United States and
Canada.
It has changed North American skies and has benefited Air
Canada, which has increased its cross-border activities. It now
operates over 1,300 flights a week on 72 routes between Canada and
the United States.
This opening-up has meant many benefits for Canada and the
Canadian economy. It has helped create jobs since 1995.
Canada is quick to welcome all forms of liberalization that
will benefit Canada. While we must be cautious about the
introduction of such measures, we must remain open to everything
that involves relations between Canada and all other countries.
In short, measures of this sort are of interest to all
international communities, in obvious contrast to the inward-
looking approach of the sovereignists—
The Speaker: The member for Compton—Stanstead.
* * *
ANNIE PERRAULT
Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to read a letter of congratulations to Annie Perreault.
“Dear Annie:
“I was so proud to see you climb up to the highest step on the
podium on February 19. I avidly followed the Olympic Games. Not
only was our country represented by its best athletes, but the
riding of Compton—Stanstead had its own special representative:
Annie Perreault.
“I congratulate you on the medals you so deservedly won. You
are finally reaping the reward of years of efforts. Your talent
and your willpower are a source of inspiration to all those who
aspire to the Olympic Games.
“I thank you, Annie, for so ably representing our country. I
hope in the weeks and months to come you may enjoy all the
opportunities your exploits bring you.
“You, Annie, are one great Canadian”.
* * *
[English]
RICHMOND HILL
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, 125
years ago the town of Richmond Hill had its first town council
meeting. At that time Yonge Street was a dirt road, the tallest
building in the town was a new church and the fastest thing on
four wheels was a horse and buggy.
Since that time Richmond Hill has grown from a small village on
a hill to become the fastest growing large municipality in
Canada. The original village is still the heart of the community
which covers over 99 square kilometres in York region.
On behalf of the town, Mr. Speaker, I invite you to come out and
help us celebrate at any one of the festivities planned for this
year.
As a former town councillor, I am very pleased to stand up in
the House and congratulate the town of Richmond Hill on its 125th
anniversary.
* * *
CANADIAN CENSUS
Mr. Deepak Obhrai (Calgary East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday a young Canadian cried out when the Secretary of State
for Multiculturalism rose to defend her government's racial
census.
Millions of Canadians share this youngster's anguish. Despite
this government's best efforts the citizens of this country want
to be recognized as Canadians.
Nineteen per cent of respondents proudly identified themselves
as Canadians, with the highest percentage coming from Quebec.
Canada is a land of immigrants. It is by definition a
multicultural society rich in diversity and tolerance. This
census and this government's agenda to promote policies that do
nothing but divide communities are shortsighted and a further
threat to national unity and nation building.
Listen to the people and let Canadians be Canadians.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Prime Minister once said: “We are moving toward the
time when the budget will finally be balanced. When we reach
that time”—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: We are going to start again. The hon.
Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning: He went on to say: “When we reach
that time we will allocate every billion dollars of fiscal
dividend so that one half will go to reducing taxes and reducing
national debt”.
Can the Prime Minister state without qualification, without
wriggling, without addition and subtraction, that this promise
will be honoured in today's budget?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is 2.15 p.m. In 2 hours and 15 minutes the hon.
member will be able to confirm what he said earlier, that it
looks like we have balanced our books.
Again I can feel the jealousy of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, you will notice that the Prime Minister did not
answer the question.
The Prime Minister wriggles, the Prime Minister evades, exactly
like he did before the budget when we were supposed to see the
killing of the GST.
Why does the Prime Minister look and sound today just like he
did before the budget in which he broke his promise to kill the
GST?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to make sure the hon. member did not miss it, we
outlined in dark lettering on the side of page 28 the following:
“We will allocate our budget surpluses so that over the course
of our mandate, one half will be spent to improve our programs,
and one half will go to tax cuts and reduction of the debt”. It
is very clear.
When we have a surplus we will have about a billion dollars. Of
course when we split it up there will be $500 million on one side
and $500 million on the other side over the course of the
mandate.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, this has a familiar ring to it. He drags out the red
book and says it is not quite here, it is on the side. He is
qualifying, adding, subtracting.
Why is it that the Prime Minister looks and sounds today just
like he did before the budget in which he broke his promise to
kill, scrap and abolish the GST?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, sometimes we do not manage to do it exactly as we
predicted. We said that we would balance the books over a period
of five years and we have done it in four years.
I think I will call the Minister of Finance to ask him to change
the budget in case we balance it this year. We should probably
wait until next year to satisfy the Leader of the Opposition.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the only people smiling today are the well trained backbenchers
in the Liberal government.
That is because the surplus was given to them alone. What was
supposed to be a surplus for all Canadians, a surplus for weary
taxpayers, has turned into a surplus for big spenders only.
1420
Why did the government break its red book promise again and
donate a huge wad of this surplus to new spending other than debt
and tax relief?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would rather have people well trained than not trained
at all. I hope the Minister of Finance will have money for
training so members of the Reform Party can use it to train
themselves a little more on the finances of the nation.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister promised to split the surplus 50:50 between
spending and debt and tax relief. He knows it and the Canadian
public knows it. Taxpayers are owed that surplus now but they
are not going to get it. The Prime Minister says “I am really
sorry. Not this year”.
Why is it that the Prime Minister stands in his place, shrugs,
smirks and sings “somewhere over the mandate?” When is it
going to be?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can see the Reform Party is getting mad and frustrated
because of the success of the government. I understand that and
we are trying to be as nice as possible. We will train them.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM FUND
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as
regards the millennium fund, there is no indication that the government
intends to respect the jurisdiction of the Quebec government, which has
been administering, for over 30 years, a loan and scholarship fund that
is much more elaborate than those of the other provinces.
Yet, in December 1995, this government passed a motion on Quebec's
distinct character and pledged to take note of it and act accordingly.
Why is the Prime Minister, who said the motion meant something,
stubbornly trying to duplicate Quebec's own program, through a new
standardized Canada-wide program?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we
believe that one of Canada's top priority is to prepare our young people
to face the challenges of the 21st century.
Since we got our finances in better shape than anticipated for the
year 1997-98, we decided to set some money aside to create the
millennium fund, so that young Canadians, including Quebeckers, can
attend the universities administered by provincial governments and thus
prepare themselves to take their place in the 21st century.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
takes some nerve. By the year 2002, the federal government will have cut
$10 billion from post-secondary education, and the Prime Minister is
telling us about a new program that is being condemned not only by the
Quebec government, but also by the Quebec Liberal Party, the students,
the teachers and the deans of universities. These people are unanimous
in saying that the new program does not meet Quebec's needs.
Given this new consensus in Quebec, why is the Prime Minister
stubbornly refusing, in the face of all logic, to give Quebec the right
to completely withdraw from the program, with full compensation, as
provided in the agreements signed with Jean Lesage, back in the sixties?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to see that the hon. member recognizes that Quebec's scholarship
program is funded with federal money even though it is administered by
the province. I hope they will tell students.
At this time, we are in the enviable position of being able to
help students. When the first ministers' meeting was held in
December, provincial premiers asked us to make a special effort
to help students deal with their debt load, and to help them
continue to attend university. Such was the wish expressed by the
premiers at the federal-provincial meeting—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Québec.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
In its January 1994 throne speech, the federal government
said, and I quote: “It will be the policy of the Government to seek
to clarify the federal government's responsibilities in relation to
those of other orders of government, to eliminate overlap and
duplication”.
Are we to understand that the only original way the federal
government has found of clarifying its responsibilities, of
eliminating overlap and duplication, is to create a coast-to-coast
program of millennium scholarships, a complete invasion of
provincial jurisdiction?
1425
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think the member has not yet
heard the Minister of Finance's budget speech. She is jumping to
conclusions when she says that the millennium fund duplicates what
is being done by the Government of Quebec.
What I can tell you is that, as the Prime Minister pointed
out, there will be no duplication with what the Government of
Quebec is already doing. I am very happy that the opposition is
giving us the opportunity to remind listeners that, since 1964, the
Quebec student loans program has been largely funded by the
Government of Canada.
An hon. member: By our taxes.
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur: It is not a gift, it is paid for by
our tax dollars.
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew: So I think we will keep up the
good work.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there are
limits to playing with words and concepts.
Will the minister not admit that the scholarship program is
aimed squarely at students, that it therefore falls within the
field of education, that this is an area of exclusively provincial
jurisdiction, and that Quebec already has its own loan and
scholarship programs? What business does the federal government
have interfering?
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, education is a provincial responsibility and the
Government of Canada is not interfering in education.
Financial assistance to students has been a shared
responsibility for a very long time now, and many of us here in the
House have benefited from it. There is therefore nothing new in
this.
In order to improve Canada's competitiveness, the two levels
of government must work together and that is what we will do.
* * *
[English]
TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I ask this question on behalf of the constituents of my
riding, especially the people of River Glade, Salisbury and
Petitcodiac.
Will the Minister of Transport immediately forbid the New
Brunswick government from charging tolls on the section of the
Trans-Canada Highway between Moncton and River Glade, a section
of highway that has already been constructed and paid for by
Canadians and New Brunswick taxpayers?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the short answer is no. As I have already explained
to the House, the contribution made by the federal government has
been deducted from the cost sharing that will be reflected in the
tolls.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): 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?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of Transport, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the fact that the NDP is asking these questions
three weeks after the issue was dealt with in the House of
Commons shows its relevance in Canadian society.
The former minister of transport did nothing wrong and there is
nothing wrong with this agreement. In future we should look at
whether or not the issue of tolls should be included in
federal-provincial agreements.
* * *
[Translation]
POVERTY
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is all
very fine for the government to pat itself on the back today for a
balanced budget, but there will probably not be any congratulations
forthcoming from the provincial finance ministers.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Jean J. Charest: I would like to know whether the Liberal
members plan to applaud the fact that there is more poverty, more
children living below the poverty line in Canada since their party
was elected.
Do they intend to applaud that, or does the Prime Minister
intend to raise the $10,000 basic exemption so that two million
low-income Canadians can stop paying income tax and he will finally
be doing something to help the poor people of Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party will be getting
his answer within a couple of hours.
I would like to tell him, however, that, since July 1 of last
year, we have injected $850 million into helping poor families with
children. We have made it part of our program to inject another
$850 million over this mandate.
We are greatly concerned by the poverty of families and
children in Canada. This is a priority which we included in the
throne speech and one which will, of necessity, be reflected in the
Minister of Finance's budget.
1430
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke, PC): Mr. Speaker, in all
honesty, the Prime Minister ought to also acknowledge that all that
$850 million is doing is replacing what has been lost to de-indexation.
[English]
I want to ask a question about jobs, because if we want to help
poor Canadians the first thing we should do is try to create
jobs.
We quoted time and time the fact that the American economy has
lower taxes, more growth and more jobs. Here in Canada also, in
Alberta, there are lower taxes, more growth, more jobs.
Will the Prime Minister commit to lowering taxes to create jobs
for Canadians?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, these deindexations were done by the Conservative
government before we formed the government.
The second point is yes, we are very preoccupied with jobs.
Because we made sure that the finances of the nation are in good
shape, the economy is much better.
For example, we all know that more than a million new jobs have
been created in the four years of Liberal administration,
something that was the goal of the leader of the Conservative
Party during the election for the coming five years, and we
managed to do it in the last four years.
* * *
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
unlike the Prime Minister I have consulted constituents in my own
riding about how any budget surplus should be spent, and 87% of
the respondents indicated that at least 50% of any surplus should
go to debt elimination.
My question is for the Prime Minister. He had a promise for
Canadians, not a side margin promise but a promise when he said
that 50% of the surplus would go to debt and tax relief.
How could he promise that when he knew all along that he would
blow any surplus on new spending?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, at
4.30 p.m. there will be the presentation of a budget in the
House.
I am sure the hon. member will be here to listen to the budget,
for a change. I look forward, in coming days as we move into the
budget debate, to listen to the hon. member speak in favour of
these government initiatives.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my family and I own a small coffee shop near the
University of Alberta, so I know firsthand the problems of youth
unemployment. Most of our employees are students but when
payroll taxes go up I have to look for ways to reduce expenses.
That usually means another hard working young person is out of a
job.
When will the minister realize that job killing payroll taxes
are robbing young people of a future? When will the government
wake up and smell the coffee?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member should know that payroll taxes have been
reduced. We reduced payroll taxes by $1.4 billion starting
January 1 when we reduced the employment insurance payments by
employers and employees.
* * *
[Translation]
BILL C-28
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on the
shipowner-legislator issue, we learned last week that it was not until
the matter was raised by the Bloc Quebecois that the advice of the Prime
Minister's ethics counsellor was sought.
I have a very simple question for the Prime Minister: What good is
the advice of an ethics counsellor when it is sought after the fact?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, they
are trying to attack the Minister of Finance instead of his actions.
This explains why the members of the Bloc Quebecois have asked only one
question on the economy since the House resumed sitting.
They had a single goal: to destroy the finance minister's
credibility. They did not and will not succeed.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I suggest the
Prime Minister should come to the House more often, he might hear our
questions on the economy.
Is the Prime Minister basically telling us that the reputation of
the man who is about to table the federal budget depends only on the
advice of an official appointed by him, paid by him and accountable to
no one but him and who basically says what he wants him to say?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, now
they are attacking the ethics counsellor, who appeared before the House
committee to clarify his position and his actions.
They cannot attack the Minister of Finance on what he has done. I
checked; as far as I could see, they have put only one question on the
economy since the House reconvened. They are trying to destroy the
Minister of Finance.
1435
Again, the Minister of Finance is a man of integrity and honesty,
who has the confidence of the Prime Minister. He will make an excellent
budget speech today and this smear campaign will not take away from his
merit.
* * *
[English]
TAXATION
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan—Shuswap, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Florence Shannon from Tappen in my riding of
Okanagan—Shuswap is a senior citizen. She pays so much tax and
has such a small pension that she wrote to the Prime Minister
through me. I quote:
Thank you for dictating to me how I must spend my money. This
means I do not have your permission to own anything. Thank you
for making my old age like living in hell.
Will the Prime Minister tell Mrs. Shannon and other senior
citizens why he is treating the taxpayers' surplus as if it was
his own money?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let us be perfectly clear. The
government need not take any lessons from the Reform Party on
taxes.
We are the government that with the support of Canadians has
battled down a $42 billion deficit, which is the only reason why
today we are able to talk about a potential fiscal dividend. It
is because of the actions of this government, and we will
continue on that front.
Mr. Jim Pankiw (Saskatoon—Humboldt, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
if the nation's finances are in the black today it is because
Canadian taxpayers are in the red.
A constituent of mine, Robyn McGregor, is a single mother
struggling to make ends meet because of the high tax policies of
the government. Her 11 year old son Nathan requires dental work,
but high taxes means no trip to the dentist.
Why is it so easy for the Prime Minister to say no to relief for
taxpayers like Robyn but to say yes to lavish spending by his
cabinet ministers?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I invite the hon. member to make
sure that he is here at 4.30 p.m. so that he can stand and
applaud the budget of the government and the speech of the
Minister of Finance.
* * *
[Translation]
DON CHERRY
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The media commented at length on the insulting remarks made by Don
Cherry toward Quebeckers, on the CBC network.
Does the heritage minister disagree with Mr. Cherry's comments? If
so, will she express her disagreement to the crown corporation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know Don Cherry well and I do not always agree with him,
particularly when he talks about Jean-Luc Brassard who, after all, is a
world champion and has been known around the world for years as one of
the best skiers.
Having said that, I want to ask the hon. member a question. Given
that Canada won 15 medals at those Olympic Games, our best ever, why
would the Bloc Quebecois not congratulate the Canadian athletes for
their achievements?
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to
forgive the minister. We have been congratulating our athletes during
Statements by Members since last week, but as the minister was in
Nagano, she could not possibly know that.
The minister is using an easy way out to avoid answering the
question, even though she herself said, the day after the referendum,
that Radio-Canada should change its tune and stick with its mandate.
Does the minister not agree that she should intervene and express
her strong disagreement? Now is the time to defend Quebec.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I said clearly that I do not agree with Don Cherry's comments.
But it is also true that if I told Radio-Canada what to say, the Bloc
Quebecois and the hon. member would be the first ones to condemn us for
interfering in the affairs of Radio-Canada.
* * *
1440
[English]
YOUTH
Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the finance minister.
Kyle is from my riding. He is 21 years old, currently
unemployed. He is a seasonal construction worker and owes more
than $25,000 in student loans. How can Kyle afford to live, let
alone pay down his student loan? Kyle wants to finish his
education and cannot wait for, as the media calls it, the little
guy from Shawinigan memorial fund.
How will the finance minister put more money into Kyle's pocket
rather than his?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact in less than two hours
the Minister of Finance will bring down his budget and all these
questions may be addressed.
Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. That is good news for the
government. That is not good news for the opposition.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, like
many other urban ridings across Canada, North Vancouver is home
to a lot of small businesses many of the owners of which work 14
hours a day, 7 days a week to fill the coffers of the finance
minister. Often those owners take home less in pay to support
their families than they pay in corporate and payroll taxes to
this government.
Why is the Prime Minister dishing out more money for lavish and
wasteful spending for his cabinet ministers when he should be
giving tax relief to the small business job creators of Canada?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how long I can
stand in my place and say this before the opposition members
understand.
In less than two hours the finance minister will stand in his
place and announce and read the budget speech. That is in fact
what he will do. Again it will be good news for Canadians,
perhaps not good news for the members of the opposition.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
This morning, Statistics Canada once again confirmed the sharp
drop in unemployment insurance recipients. Between 1996 and 1997,
the number of unemployed decreased by only 4%, yet the number of
persons drawing unemployment insurance dropped by 17%.
What is the minister waiting for to put an end to the most
negative aspects of his so-called unemployment insurance reform?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have embarked on a major reform
of employment insurance. This government is indeed concerned about
the drop in the number of people in the system, a trend confirmed
by the figures that have been released.
What I can say is that I have already asked my department to
provide us with further detail on what that figure represents. If
the opposition already has the answer, they are most fortunate. I
believe that the nature of the figures has not been clarified. The
EI eligibility criteria alone do not explain this phenomenon.
There are other elements, and I want to understand them before I
reach a decision.
* * *
[English]
UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Canada is once again in a position to be named to the UN
Security Council. Will the minister explain to the House how
members in a non-partisan manner can assist in promoting Canada
in this endeavour?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, in recent days we have seen how important the
security council is to contributing to peaceful solutions. We
believe that Canada has an opportunity to make a major
contribution.
We have seen how much MPs have been useful in helping in the
land mines issue around the world talking to their colleagues. I
hope that we can count on the commitment of every single member
of Parliament to help bring about the election of Canada to the
security council so we can make a contribution to peace and
security. I hope all the leaders will make sure that is endorsed.
* * *
THE DEBT
Mr. Eric Lowther (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
residents of my riding of Calgary Centre are concerned about the
debt load that is being left to all our children. That debt was
increased by $100 billion by this government opposite. Let us
never forget that.
I asked the residents in my riding: What would you do if you
were the finance minister? Seventy per cent of respondents said
priority one is debt retirement.
1445
Why is this government ignoring debt retirement as a priority
and is stuck like an addiction on increased spending?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canadians have waited nearly 30
years for what the finance minister may announce today. Surely
the opposition can wait two more hours. Let me be very specific.
The big hand is on the six. The little hand is on the four.
Altogether, 4.30. I hope they are here to listen to the finance
minister.
* * *
TAXATION
Mr. Reed Elley (Nanaimo—Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberals across the way gloat but they gloat at the
taxpayers' expense and all Canadians know that.
In my riding and in every community across this country there
are families that are struggling to make ends meet. Year after
year they see more of their income taken away in taxes. These
are the people who balanced the budget, not the Liberals. They
are the ones who will pay off the Liberal-Tory mortgage.
Canadians deserve a break.
Why is the Prime Minister treating the taxpayers' surplus as if
it was his own money and already blowing it on new spending?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as has been said often by
members on this side of the House, it is because of the hard work
and the support of Canadians that we have been able to accomplish
the successes we have had as a government. It is with the
support of Canadians that we will be able to allow Canadians in
partnership with the government to go into the next century
working hard together and building Canada.
We have no lessons to take from the Reform Party. If those tax
changes that the Reform Party continues to talk about in any way
imperil the finances of this government, it is not what Canadians
support. We will continue on our track.
* * *
FISHERIES
Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has stated to our
committee that there is no 12-mile protection zone around Langara
Island on B.C.'s west coast from commercial trawlers. However,
DFO documents clearly state otherwise.
He has also stated that one should never give allocation of
quota from one sector of the fishing industry to another. This
is exactly what has happened when DFO cut off chinook salmon to
the B.C. fisheries and gave it to the sport fishing institute.
Miss Velma McColl, who worked for that sport fishing institute,
is now the minister's assistant in B.C.
Why does this government allow DFO to have a policy which helps
the minister's friends in B.C.—
The Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary.
[Translation]
Hon. Gilbert Normand (Secretary of State (Agriculture and
Agri-Food)(Fisheries and Oceans), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member is referring to a specific case. I will have to obtain the
necessary information before I can respond. I will be pleased to
provide him with an answer next time.
* * *
[English]
IMMIGRATION
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The immigration legislative review hearings are beginning in
Vancouver this week. I have met with a number of local
organizations. There is increasing concern because the minister
has not allowed anywhere near adequate time for people to respond
and be heard.
Will the minister give the community more time to be heard and
assure us that the recommendations, as suspected by many, will
not be forced through in a big rush?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of all, the report submitted
for public consultation is not a government report. It was done by
three individuals not connected with either the government or the
Department of Citizenship and Immigration.>
Second, yes, there will be public consultations. Initially,
I had announced I would conduct five days of consultations across
the country, but we have doubled that figure in response to
pressures from a variety of groups. There will therefore be
consultations across the country for 10 days, providing many
interested parties with the opportunity to be heard in connection
with this report.
* * *
[English]
THE ECONOMY
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, today
is an important day for all Canadians who have sacrificed
heavily.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Scott Brison: Mr. Speaker, before the seals become
too excited, they should realize that The Economist
magazine says much of the credit for the fiscal surplus is due to
structural changes made by the Conservative government in the
early 1990s.
1450
Let us face it. The real heroes are ordinary Canadians who have
suffered under Liberal cuts to health care and education and who
have suffered under the highest taxation of all the G-7
countries. Will the Prime Minister give a millennium tax—
The Speaker: The hon. parliamentary secretary.
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the last Conservative budget,
and God willing the last ever, projected government spending
would rise this year to $128 billion. That is more than $20
billion higher than will actually happen. How much money does
the Conservative Party think would be left for tax cuts if we
stuck to its plan?
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, what
Canadians will see this afternoon in this budget is not
necessarily what they will get. The Minister of Finance may have
black ink on his hands but Canadians are still covered in red
ink. Personal debt is up. Personal savings are down. Personal
bankruptcies are up. Personal income in terms of take home pay
is down. And the Prime Minister and his party are actually
celebrating over there.
Will the Prime Minister offer Canadians broad based tax relief
so they too can be in the black?
Mr. Tony Valeri (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again I would have to remind the
member that he should be in this House at 4.30 p.m. to listen to
what the budget has to say.
I find it absolutely incredible. Listening to the Tories talk
about taxes is like watching someone return to the scene of the
crime.
* * *
DISASTER ASSISTANCE
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the minister of agriculture.
The Reform member for Prince George—Peace River accused the
government of having one set of rules for compensating farmers
for losses because of the ice storm and different rules for the
farmers in Nova Scotia and the Peace River area of B.C. and
Alberta. Can the minister tell this House clearly what the rules
are for disaster assistance in Canada?
Hon. Lyle Vanclief (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can certainly clarify it very easily.
There is a net income stabilization account available to all
farmers in Canada. There is crop insurance available to all
farmers in Canada. There are companion programs available to all
farmers in Canada.
When a province calls upon the disaster funding assistance
agreement as was the case in the Saguenay, the Red River and
Ontario and Quebec recently, we treat them the very same. If the
provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Nova Scotia wish to
call upon that agreement, this government will discuss it with
them, but to date they have not done so.
* * *
CALGARY DECLARATION
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday when I asked the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs about promoting the Calgary declaration
in Quebec, he replied that according to all the information we
have, including polls, the Calgary declaration is strongly
supported in Quebec. The minister's answer reflects the same
overconfidence this government had prior to the 1995 referendum.
What consultation and what polling is this minister referring to
that gives him this confidence? Will he make that information
public?
[Translation]
Hon. Stéphane Dion (President of the Queen's Privy Council for
Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, here are the results of a December 8, 1997 Angus Reid
poll.
“The Canadian Constitution should recognize the unique
character of Quebec society”; in Quebec, 85% agreed with the
statement.
“It is desirable for the federal parliament and the provincial
legislatures to recognize the unique character of Quebec, while
affirming the principle of provincial equality”; 80% agreed.
“It is possible to reform the Canadian federation on the basis
of these two principles”; 69% agreed.
[English]
Environics, October 1997: Would you say you support what the
premiers have proposed? Support, 61% in Quebec. Opposed, 39% in
Quebec.
* * *
1455
[Translation]
HEPATITIS C VICTIMS
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the federal
government has primary responsibility for the blood supply system, since
the provinces already defray the health costs of hepatitis C victims and
given the huge cuts made in transfer payments to the provinces for
health, is the federal government prepared to take into account the
substantial amounts already paid by the provinces for the treatment of
hepatitis C victims in negotiating compensation for these people?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is in
the best interest of the victims of this tragedy for both levels of
government, federal and provincial, to work together to compensate
victims.
I am working on it. I have already met with my counterparts and I
hope that, within a few days, we will be in a position to meet these
important needs.
* * *
[English]
POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, funding for
post-secondary education for deaf students in Ontario will be
folded into the OSAP. Deaf students will join the ranks of
thousands of others in raking up debts to get a post-secondary
education, only for these students it will be much worse. They
will have to assume expenses of up to $60,000 for sign language
interpreters, notetakers and tuition to specialized universities.
Does the Prime Minister agree that students with disabilities
should pay more for their education? If so, could he tell me
exactly on what page and at what paragraph in the budget this
will be addressed?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not have the budget documents yet. I will have
them in one hour and 37 minutes.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, in
December, the government maintained employment insurance premiums at
$2.70 in spite of the fact that the actuary in charge of the EI fund
believed the fund could run on a $2 premium.
In his very first budget, the Minister of Finance stated that
payroll taxes were a barrier to employment.
Will the minister draw inspiration from his own words and give
small business and Canadian workers the tax break they deserve, which is
required to promote job creation?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Conservative Party
for giving me this opportunity to explain that, two months ago, we
reduced employment insurance premiums by $1.4 billion.
This cut in the EI account is over four consecutive years. I
realize that the Conservatives have a problem grasping this, but we are
fiscally responsible. We have the people's interests at heart and intend
to ensure that, should the economy falter, we will not have to raise
premiums when the situation is at its most difficult, as the
Conservatives did.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Justice.
In upholding an acquittal of a man charged with sexual assault
11 days ago, a justice of the Alberta court of appeal made
inappropriate comments about the complainant's mode of dress,
suggesting she “was asking for it”.
What is the justice minister going to do to protect the women of
this country from these kinds of outrageous comments and rulings
which suggest that no means yes?
[Translation]
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I would like to thank my colleague for this important question.
I cannot comment, however, as there may be an appeal. I must say
that the federal legislation is clear: no means no.
[English]
We have to challenge the myths and stereotypes, including the
view that a victim, usually a woman, has to forcibly resist to
indicate denial of consent.
Let me assure all members of the House that this government will
stand behind the legislation, including the new rape shield
legislation, so that victims will not be victimized again by the
justice system.
* * *
1500
POINTS OF ORDER
BUDGET DEBATE
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, my point of order concerns the arrangements for the
debate this afternoon which will begin later on.
The standing orders of the House were drafted to accommodate
three parties in this House. The electorate has of course sent
five.
I am seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion to alter
the arrangements for the putting of amendments and subamendments
to the budget debate. This would have the effect of keeping the
Reform amendment before the House until the final day of the
budget debate.
It would also permit the Bloc Quebecois, the New Democratic
Party and the Progressive Conservative Party to put subamendments
to the House for a vote as well.
The Speaker: I think we get the gist of it now. Does the
hon. member have the agreement of the House to put forth a
motion?
Some hon. members: No.
MINISTER OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it was apparent from the answer given by
the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that he was
reading from polling data.
I ask that the minister table that poll in this House.
The Speaker: The hon. minister has a document with him it
seems. The page will pick it up and it will be tabled in the
House.
BUDGET DEBATE
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my point of order concerns the arrangements for the
debate on the budget which will begin later this afternoon
following the Conservative point of order.
The standing orders of the House were drafted to accommodate
three parties in the House, but the Canadian electorate last June
sent five parties to this House.
I am seeking unanimous consent to put forward a motion to alter
the arrangements—
The Speaker: My colleague, there are two parts to putting
forth a motion. The first is to get the approval of the House to
put a motion and the second is to hear the motion itself.
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to put forth a
motion?
Some hon. members: No.
QUESTIONS
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, over the course of this Parliament we are using a 35
second time limit for questions and answers. But as a result of
prolonged applause or heckling at times, I am experiencing that
members of our party and I suggest other members of the House are
often cut off because they do not have time to get their
questions out.
I am sure the Speaker is cognizant of this but I would ask your
indulgence at times when a person does not have the ability to
put the question forward.
1505
The Speaker: The hon. member's point is well taken. The
hon. House leader of the Reform Party brought this point up to me
earlier on.
I have taken it upon myself that where there is either prolonged
applause or non-applause I give a bit of room. I hear where the
applause starts and then I try to make the adjustment as close as
I can. I will go over a bit, but not too much. This House has
agreed that it will be 35 seconds for questions and 35 seconds
for answers. I try to come in under that basis but members will
have to leave me a bit of room to manoeuvre.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, on this point of order, it is
illustrative to know that today the longest time spent in
questioning was by the Conservatives. They averaged 42 seconds.
The Speaker: I am going to have to be like the referee in
a hockey game. I am the only one who can bring in a whistle,
which means a clock.
BUDGET DEBATE
Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we have seen today two points of order asking for a unanimous
consent in the House.
Recently we saw in the House unanimous consent being asked five
times in one day on the same issue. Would it be the Speaker's
intention to hear this point of order identical to the one we
have just heard from the NDP and the Conservatives?
The Speaker: Your Speaker would have to be clairvoyant to
know what every member is going to say. I would have to hear
what every hon. member has to say before I would make any kind of
decision.
In direct answer to your question, I will hear as many points of
order as the House would want me to hear. After I have heard up
to a certain point where I can figure out what they are doing, I
would put a question, for example whether there is permission to
put a motion. We would go from there.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I do not believe that the matter has been clarified. It
is important that the Speaker clarify this.
The point that was raised was that on occasion, given the rules
of this House, unanimous consent is required in order to take a
particular course of action. The point is that once unanimous
consent is not given to a particular proposal, is it possible for
that same proposal or that same initiative to come forward time
and time again on the same day?
It seems to me if unanimous consent is denied when the question
is put ab initio that should be the end of the matter for that
day. Otherwise we are faced with a situation that defeats the
whole purpose behind that rule that says you require unanimous
consent in order to take a particular course of action.
If a single member of Parliament decides for whatever reason to
deny unanimous consent in order to ensure that a particular
initiative does not come forward on any given day, that person
has to be glued to his or her seat for the entire day. That is
not in keeping with the intent of that rule.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, instead of having a prolonged
debate as to whether we should change the rules, I respectfully
suggest to the House that in April we will be debating rules
generally. These are points hon. members might want to bring up
at that time, either for or against a particular proposition.
1510
It is provided for in our rules and it is scheduled as per an
agreement between House leaders to take place at some point in
April.
I suggest that would be an appropriate time to make that
contribution on the topic in question.
The Speaker: Once again, the rules of the House are those
that have been decided by the House. I, like you, am bound by
the rules. There has to be a certain sense of fairness and there
has to be a certain flexibility in the House.
What if an hon. member brings up a point for unanimous consent
and it is refused. The other House leaders could come together
and decide that maybe there was a mistake and the same point is
brought up again.
That is why I give myself and all the Speakers, of course, the
latitude to at least hear enough to find out which way this is
going.
I hope this would not be abused by members of the House where
one or two or ten members would go through the whole thing. I
think once we got the feel of it, we could make the decision at
that time.
The House can take care of itself, I believe. We will continue
to be as flexible as we can, always in keeping with the spirit of
the rules of the House.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
CANADA LABOUR CODE
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-19, an
act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations
and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make consequential
amendments to other acts, be read the second time and referred to
a committee.
The Deputy Speaker: When the House broke for question
period the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain had five
minutes remaining in his allotted time.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to complete a few thoughts
I had regarding this bill.
Time is a wonderful thing for having Canadians look back on a
bill with some reflection. Although we are discussing this bill
at the present time, let us look down the road about a month's
time.
Just like people now looking at the CPP, they now have some
questions to ask about the government's investment board. Just
like people who have recently passed Bill C-4, the Senate decided
it had better have a better look.
We should have a permanent and fair resolution process in order,
something that is far removed from the desires of the government,
something that is far removed from the whims of the government at
any time.
That is exactly what Reform's position is, something that will
get government out and allow the employees and the employers to
have a peaceful settlement over the course of action.
I want to draw one conclusion as it relates to some of the
ambiguous terms of this. It says that this board that comes
together can have a work stoppage if public health and safety are
at risk.
In Saskatchewan we can have blizzards at any time. Many times
we have blizzards without even the weather forecast coming in.
The highway workers are on strike because public health or safety
are not considered to be involved.
However, as my hon. colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands
mentioned, what about ambulance services being involved? The
highway workers are on strike and the roads are blocked. What if
somebody dies on the way to emergency care?
This type of legislation does not solve anything now or in the
future. We do not need government interference. What we need is
for both parties to understand that they can rely on fair and
equitable treatment to be in place and that the government's
hands will be completely off. There will be a final selection
arbitration which will be an effective tool and will permanently
resolve all the disputes we have had in labour issues under the
previous administrations.
1515
I beg the House to take a good look at the bill. It does
nothing to solve labour disputes in Canada.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-19,
the Canada Labour Code part I amendments.
My colleagues have pointed out to the House some of the concerns
we have as a party about the direction in which the bill is
going. I echo those concerns.
I cannot understand how a government with clear conscience could
take away individual rights as guaranteed under the charter. We
have heard from my hon. colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine
Coast his concern about the sharing of names, addresses and phone
numbers without the permission of individuals. I do not know if
people can understand and appreciate how serious a violation that
is of the Privacy Act.
We have had many conversations with the privacy commissioner on
how difficult it is to protect the rights of individuals. When
we see a government deliberately bringing in legislation that
challenges one of its laws, in this case the Privacy Act, we have
to wonder in what direction it is going.
Canadians should have the opportunity to understand that the
government is washing over issues. It is changing the name of
the Canada Labour Relations Board. It is becoming the Canada
Industrial Relations Board. It is changing the term of the chair
and the vice-chairs from 10 years to 5 years.
We have seen what happens when the government appoints people to
such positions for one year or ten years and then tries to remove
them because they are not doing the job properly or they are not
being accountable.
This board will not be accountable to anybody. Somebody will be
replacing Ted Weatherill. I do not know whether members have
already forgotten about this individual who thought absolutely
nothing of spending $700 for a dinner for two in Paris. That is
the kind of judgment that will be leading this board. I
understand he will be replaced by somebody who is more frugal,
who understands that it is not his money but the taxpayer's
money. Hopefully he will show greater leadership.
When a government appoints six permanent members and as many
part time members as cabinet feels is necessary, it frightens me
and it frightens Canadians. We have seen organizations like the
parole board and the refugee review board that have expanded on
patronage appointments. These boards are quasi-judicial and are
not accountable to anybody. We cannot remove the appointed
people unless there is criminal activity or something as great as
that. They cannot be removed because they are incapable or
incompetent to do the job.
It is up to cabinet to determine how many of these people are
necessary. This removes from the House of Commons any ability to
hold people on these boards accountable to Canadian taxpayers who
are paying their salaries. In many cases we are talking about
substantial salaries. We are not talking about a $7 per hour
minimum wage.
It concerns me how the government continues a practice I have
seen over the last four or five years of removing responsibility
from the elected body, the House of Commons, and placing it in
the hands of the executive body of government. By placing
control and policy making in the executive branch of government,
it is removing governance from the people of Canada.
It is a very dangerous practice which the government continues to
carry on.
1520
If Canadians knew the degree to which this was occurring they
would be very concerned to see that the governance of the country
is being removed from elected individuals in the House of Commons
who are accountable to the people, to a group of people who sit
on the front bench and are not accountable to anybody.
That is another concern I have with this legislation, along with
many others we have seen passed by the Liberal government. It
goes in the wrong direction.
Another issue that causes me great concern is that the Canada
Industrial Relations Board can certify a union without the
support of the majority of employees. It flies in the face of
democracy when a board, which is out of reach of anybody, can
arbitrarily go into a business and declare there will be a union
even though the majority of the employees do not want it. That
is arrogance at the very worst.
I do not think Canadians appreciate that direction from the
government. It is unconscionable to believe that the democratic
principle of the majority of people making decisions that affect
their livelihood is not being respected.
The government is throwing the weight of the executive branch
over the elected branch, the elected House of Commons. The
government is not respecting the privacy rights of every
Canadian. The government does not support the democratic
principle of the majority making decisions. What else will we
see from the government? Those are the basics of a democracy.
The government does not show an appreciation for that. Nor does
it have any respect for that democratic process and principle.
What do we have in this piece of legislation? We have a
situation where an individual can belong to a company. Maybe 30%
of the employees decide they want to unionize for whatever
reasons, perhaps because they have been pressured by individuals
who know their addresses and phone numbers. The next thing we
find is that the company has closed and moved out of town like we
saw in Montreal not long ago. That takes jobs out of this
country.
Maybe I got the message wrong, but I thought the government was
concerned about jobs for Canadians. When a government starts
bringing in legislation that drives the business community out of
the country, the people who provide the jobs for young and old
Canadians, what is the point?
If the government continually brings in legislation that forces
the business community, either through legislative policies that
interfere with the ability to operate a business in a profitable
manner or through overtaxation, God knows how many business
people such as the one I have spoken to over the years prior to
the election, will actually leave Canada and go to the United
States of America or even to South America.
If the government is intent on creating jobs and creating an
environment to encourage business, to encourage investment and to
encourage the creation of jobs, it is certainly going in the
wrong direction. The government had better take another look at
the legislation. It had better make some amendments to it or
maybe even scrap it. I suggest it should do it tomorrow rather
than leave it any longer.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
count it a privilege every time I have the opportunity to speak
in the House on behalf of the people of the constituency
Kootenay—Columbia.
In my constituency I have quite a mix of people in terms of who
they work for and what their jobs are.
I would dare guess that approximately 20% to 25% of my workforce
works in a unionized workforce. It is therefore important to put
on record for them exactly how I see the bill and exactly how I
see the impact there will be on workers.
1525
There are companies and unions in my constituency. Most
important, there are the people who live and work in my
constituency. I am concerned primarily about the effect of this
kind of legislation on the people in the unionized workforce.
There is deep concern about the fact that clause 50 of Bill C-19
allows the board to ignore the privacy interests of workers and
to order an employer to disclose the names and addresses of
“employees whose normal workplace is not on premises owned or
controlled by the employer” if a trade union needs the
information to solicit trade union membership. The Canada
Industrial Relations Board should not be allowed to do this.
Clause 50 should be repealed.
We have an issue in Canada of privacy of information. It is not
right that unions should be able to exercise their ability under
clause 50 to access private mailing information of workers. Why?
Because we are not just talking about a union versus management
situation. We are really talking about, to a very great extent,
a union versus union situation or a recertification process that
might be undertaken. The invasion of the privacy of the workers
in my constituency is absolutely unacceptable.
The board is prepared to rely on the inherently unreliable and
undemocratic card based system, even though in union raid cases
the board has said:
Excellence has taught us in cases of union raids, a vote should
be ordered so that the employees may choose freely, within the
privacy of the polling booth, which union they wish to have as
their representative.
That comes from a case between the Communication Workers of
Canada and the Communications Union of Canada. One would think
that the board would realize a vote should be ordered in all
cases and not just in the case of a fight between trade unions.
The statement of Professor Paul Weiler of Harvard University is
compelling. He states:
A secret ballot vote has a symbolic value that a card check can
never have. It clears the air of any doubts about the union's
majority and also confers a measure of legitimacy on the union's
bargaining authority, especially among pockets of employees who
were never contacted in the initial organizational drive.
A secret ballot, particularly in something as critical as whom
the union will be representing or whether it should be certified
or decertified, must be behind the curtain of a private ballot
where each employee can make a choice without fear of coercion.
I am not suggesting that there are any unions or union
organizers in my constituency who would do that. However we are
talking about the entire country of Canada. We are talking about
a very large workforce. Surely at some point there will be
unfair, undue coercion.
Furthermore, we are in a democratic country where we can make
choices about who will be elected to represent constituents in
the chamber. By the same token workers must have an uncoerced
right to make the choice of who will represent them in the
workplace or indeed if they are to be represented.
Probably the most onerous part of the proposed legislation is
that the Canada Industrial Relations Board will be able to
override the vote should a vote take place. I submit that
neither the Canada Industrial Relations Board nor any other body
should have the capacity to rationally discharge a task which
involves nothing more than wild speculation.
1530
This section of legislation is targeted against employers who
may become involved in an unfair labour practice. Again, nobody
is without fault. Knives have a tendency to cut going in both
directions. If some union organizers can get off base, surely
from time to time some employers can get off base. But what is
the remedy proposed?
The remedy proposed is that the board would override the
democratically expressed will of the workers. For example, the
dangers associated with this type of law were demonstrated when
the Ontario Labour Relations Board, ignoring the will of the
workers, certified the United Steelworkers of America as
bargaining agents for workers in a Wal-Mart of Canada store in
Windsor.
The House should know that the workers voted 151 to 43 against
union representation. The Ontario Labour Relations Board, having
determined to its satisfaction that there had been unfair labour
practices, then simply overrode the will of the workers. This
kind of law is very dangerous.
In the time I have had the privilege of being the Member of
Parliament for Kootenay—Columbia, I have received many excellent
representations from employers, from employees, from unions and
from their workers. I have one such representation in my hand
from some of the workers who are working with the Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers. In the last labour dispute that was settled
by back to work legislation, they have pointed out in a fair
amount of detail exactly where they ended up getting the short
end of the stick.
As a matter of fact, they have made the point that during the
course of a year the locomotive engineers will actually be
negative $8,700 of income as a result of that settlement.
I take this kind of representation from them, particularly when
I receive it from individual members, very seriously. I recognize
that in the back to work legislation that was cobbled together at
the last minute by the Liberals there were areas that gave
disadvantages to the workers in my constituency.
The Reform Party is simply proposing that rather than going into
the band-aid approach and once again lurching forward to a point
where there will be work stoppages, and unfortunately there will
be work stoppages on the railway, with grain handling and other
areas that are actually under the jurisdiction of this federal
legislation, we recognize there will be work stoppages and we are
saying that this legislation is grossly inadequate, does not
answer the question and comes up with the problems that I have
already detailed.
The Reform Party supports the concept of final offer selection
arbitration. This is a preferred method of binding arbitration.
In taking a look at this proposal, it brings a new fresh
approach to this very contentious problem. It puts the workers
and the companies on an even plane but, most important, it deals
with the issue of the tremendous national negative economic
impact should a work stoppage occur.
I implore the government to set aside Bill C-19 at this point or
at least if it gets through the House and gets into the committee
to seriously take a look at Reform's idea of final offer
selection arbitration. It would be good for the workers. It
would be good for the companies. The most important thing is it
would be good for Canada.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am greatly
honoured to stand in this place and speak about one of the most
important and fundamental issues facing our country, the
relationship people have with one another in the workplace.
1535
I often think the role of government should be to reduce
coercion. If we are a free democratic society that believes in
the freedom of individuals, then the government should have a
role to reduce the lack of freedom certain individuals have in
the workplace.
I have had a varied work experience in my short lifetime. Having
worked in locations with and without union agreements, it is not
at all clear to me that the best place to work is where there is
a union shop. There are pluses on both sides.
I remember fondly decades ago being a student and working as a
truck driver. Members can see I picked up some of the truck
driver characteristics and never lost them. I had a wonderful
experience working for a Saskatchewan firm. I was able to earn
$1 an hour and I made more money than I knew how to use.
Educational expenses were reasonable in those days and I went
year to year with a balanced budget.
I came out at the end without a debt. I had only my taxes to
pay when I got my first job. That was my way of repaying the
student loan which I did not have but which I am paying to this
day, gladly so because my education provided me with a greater
income and has provided me with the ability to pay higher taxes.
I gladly pay them, to a limit.
I worked in a non-union shop. We were paid by the hour at the
going rate. I was paid less than most of the people I worked
with because I was part time student help. Some of the others in
our shop were paid more. I benefited greatly from the fact this
was not a union shop. I tried very hard. Since I came from a
farm in Saskatchewan I learned to work hard and never to complain
about long hours. As a result I ingratiated myself to the boss.
Since he had the flexibility not to give all the trips to the
guys with the seniority, he gave me some of those long trips. He
knew I could be counted on since I was one of those strange
people who did not drink. He knew that if I went on a trip I
would find my way home again. As a result I got priority over
some of the others.
If that were a union shop there would have been trouble. The
union would have said that another individual had seniority and
should be able to get the job. Our business did well. I say our
business because I felt a part of it. I was a good contributing
member of the business. I did my best and we had a good
relationship, a win-win relationship.
I contrast that with other situations in which I have worked
where the union was involved and where I got the short shrift as
part time help. The union was not there to help me at all. The
union was there simply to enforce a pecking order which had been
established over time and gave no one the chance to move up in
the ranks unless somebody older and more experienced died or left
the business. That does not provide for high motivation.
I am not anti-union. An examination of my work history will
reveal that I have been a union steward, I was the president of a
local in a place I worked. We were forced members of the union.
I remember being greatly offended by the fact that the union to
which we were forced to belong actually used a portion of our
union dues for political party contributions. I will not mention
which political party it was but members can probably figure it
out. Unions have a symbiotic relationship with at least one of
the parties in this country, a relationship I do not particularly
agree with.
The union was able to have a rule that the place where I worked
required that I belong to the union, it required that I give it
money and it required that I support a political party which is
180° out of sync with my true beliefs.
1540
I think other people would feel just as bad. I sincerely hope
those union members who are strong supporters, for example of the
NDP, would be very offended if that union decided to give a
strong political donation to the Reform Party. I hope they would
be offended and would say “you cannot do that, that is my
money”.
The point I am making is that we need to have more individual
freedom. I think that when the marketplace prevails we will find
that a very good economic balance is reached between employers
and employees 99.9% of the time.
I remember, again looking back before we were forced members of
the union at the place where I worked, I was an instructor at a
technical institute. It was run by the Government of Alberta. It
was before the union there was a forced issue. We did not have a
union when I first started there. One year the institute had
trouble getting instructors. The economy was booming and the
Northern Alberta Institute of Technology had the policy of trying
to get the best. That is I suppose how I got there. I was just
wondering whether anyone was listening. It had trouble getting
qualified instructors. In the middle of the year without any
negotiations suddenly there was an announcement of a pay
increase.
Later on we had a union. The same issue came up. The employer
said they wanted to open the contract so they could increase the
salary schedule. The union said they could not do it because
there was a union contract which goes for two years and it could
not be opened unless they opened the whole thing. It would not
just open the money clauses. To me that is so totally absurd. It
is a total infringement of individual freedoms.
I have just given a couple of examples of when one is forced
into a union where one loses one's freedom, loses bargaining
position and to a certain degree loses benefits.
I am going to give the other side as well. I have also seen
situations where individuals have not been fairly treated. The
contract has not been fairly applied to them for one reason or
another or they have been mistreated by supervisors. I was
involved as the president of the local branch of the union. I
went to bat. I think even if a person is innocent he deserves the
right to a fair and prompt hearing, trial or whatever we want to
call it. So we supported each other that way. There is some
merit in that.
Do not read into it that I am anti-union. What I want to do is
make unions more democratic.
In this bill we have before us today unions are strengthened.
To me that is upsetting a balance. It is an intrusion of an
unnatural force in the relationship between employers and
employees.
I have been involved in a number of cases where we have had
contract disputes. After we were forced members of the union for
a number of years it was decided that our institute, the Northern
Alberta Institute of Technology, would go to a board of
governors. I was honoured by my fellow staff members, 750 of
them, to be selected as the founding president of the academic
staff association at NAIT. One of the first things we did was
bargained away our right to strike because we found that nobody
wants the right to strike. If the right questions are asked they
will say emphatically “I do not want the right to strike. I do
not want the right to be without a job and without an income.
What I want is a fair income. What I want is to be treated
fairly”. That is what they really want.
Unfortunately the means to the end, the strike process has sort
of juxtaposed itself into it and now there are members of the
union and the NDP who claim that it is an indistinguishable right
to belong to a union and to strike when that is not their primary
purpose. Their primary purpose is to achieve their monetary and
job security goals.
I found that in my work as academic president when we made
arrangements to have a dispute resolution mechanism, with time
lines and arbitration, everything worked out a lot better.
1545
I hope that I will get another opportunity to speak on this
topic when it comes up for third reading.
The Deputy Speaker: I have enjoyed the hon. member's
remarks but his time has expired.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I too have enjoyed his remarks. I would ask for
unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue with his
remarks in keeping with your enjoyment.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the
hon. member for Elk Island to continue his remarks?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent.
Mr. Rick Casson (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
sure everybody would have preferred to have my hon. colleague
carry on.
I will start off by recognizing the member for Wetaskiwin who
worked so hard for our party on this bill and helped us prepare
for today.
Bill C-19 has been a topic of discussion certainly in my
constituency. I come from a constituency that is farming
intensive, livestock, grain farms, dry land irrigations,
especially crops. It has a city with manufacturing and service
industries. There is some concern with this bill and some of its
the flaws. The unfair balance of it has been pointed out to me
by constituents and others. I will address my comments to them.
The member for Elk Island when he spoke of working for a dollar
reminded me of the gentleman who was looking for a job and the
boss told him he would pay him for what he was worth. He
immediately turned and left. When the boss asked him where he
was going, he said “I cannot live on that”. But I am sure that
was not my friend from Elk Island.
We are trying to build up Canada and to get into more and more
trade with the world. Across the prairies we are looking at
secondary processing of a lot of products. We have to get those
products to market, via the railways, trucking or whatever it
takes to do that. In order for us to become a reliable source of
many of these products, we have to gain a reputation of being
able to meet our commitments. In order to meet our commitments
we have to deliver in a timely fashion.
It was a year ago this winter when we saw the grain not being
able to get market, the problems that created and the cost that
was incurred by farmers across the prairies and in my
constituency. It is important that we have a method in place to
make sure that what is produced, what is manufactured can get to
the markets. We not only have to address the west coast ports,
but a lot of things can happen to a product from the time it
leaves the plant or the farm gate until it gets to that point.
Some of those aspects are missing in this bill. The government
should have another look at that and address some of those
issues.
On the definition of grain, I had a letter from an organization
in the west that deals with dehydrated alfalfa. They pointed out
to me that in this bill the grain is the product, and I will read
it “the services they normally provide to ensure the tie-up,
let-go and loading of grain vessels at licensed terminal and
transfer elevators and the movement of the grain vessels in and
out of a port”. They are concerned with what that means. Does
it mean grain or does it mean other products? They are really
concerned that their dehydrated alfalfa products are not
included. They would like to see that done.
The whole idea that the government has control over grain was
debated last week during the debate on Bill C-4. In that
legislation the government markets the farmers' grain for them
and not necessarily for the best prices. That was a concern and
it continues today with this bill.
The record of tie-ups that have happened in the shipping
industry goes on and on. In February 1994 there was a tie-up for
two weeks. A year later Parliament had to bring an end to
another dispute. Two weeks after that, Parliament passed another
bill to end another dispute.
1550
The Reform Party is proposing final offer selection arbitration
as a method to keep everybody working, to do the same thing that
these work disruptions have done but to do it in a way in that
everybody can benefit. If we are truly to become a mover and
supplier to the world of products that are produced right across
Canada, we are going to have to do this. We cannot have these
disruptions and our customers finding out that we have the
product but we cannot deliver it to them. That just will not
work.
We see trade missions going all over the world. The chamber of
commerce from the city of Lethbridge was in Chile and elsewhere
promoting products. If we are going to have these people show
initiative and entrepreneurship to move forward in this world, we
have to enable them to get their product delivered.
As I mentioned earlier, we are not only talking about grain
here. We are talking about all products. I hope the government
will take this to heart and will have another look to realize
that some of these things are missing.
The cost of disruptions in shipments has been tried to be
quantified many times. We are looking at indirect costs of up to
$500 million in grain sales alone in 1994. It is wrong to take
$500 million out of the economy of this country. We are not
convinced that this bill will address all of those problems and
we hope the government will take another look at it.
Another aspect of the bill that has brought a lot of attention
today is the access to off site workers' records. We all have a
strong opinion that what is ours is ours and nobody should have
the right to access information about us unless we allow it. To
have this in part of the bill goes against everything Canadians
believe in. One has the right to keep one's information to
oneself.
With all of these things said and the fact that certification
can take place without a majority is undemocratic. There are a
lot of things that need to be done. The government has fallen
quite short in providing us with a piece of legislation that will
work for us.
We hope that the government will take this bill back, have
another look at it and bring it back in a better fashion.
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I know you
have been waiting with bated breath to hear my comments about
C-19.
In looking at the problems of this House, members know exactly
the one I am going to zero in on. It is is going to be the top
down nature, the way this place works, the way political parties
work quite often, the way business quite often works and of
course, the way unions quite often work. It is my hope to
emphasize in the House that the public are sick and tired of the
top down administration they get in all parts of life.
The public is asking for accountability. They are asking for
transparency. They are asking for grassroots input into what is
happening that affects their lives. Certainly when it comes to
labour legislation, an area that affects many people across this
whole country, they feel they do not have that input. A bill
like this does nothing to reassure them that they can have their
say about this legislation.
This government has a particularly bad record for listening to
the people. This weekend the Alberta winter games were in my
constituency. Thousands of people from all over Alberta were in
our riding. It went extremely well. The only problem I guess
was the plus-10 degrees and we had to haul snow in.
What the people said as I circulated around talking to them was
first, to do something about that other place. Everybody is
upset about what happens in the Senate.
Second, they talked about the debt, about that noose around their
necks and the necks of their kids and their grandchildren.
Everybody talked about that. Third, they talked about taxes. What
is this government—
1555
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point
of order. I am just wondering what this has to do with Bill
C-19. The member is launching into a speech about the debt and
about the Senate. I am here to listen to debate about Bill C-19
and members' concerns. I think it is really, really important
that we do.
The Deputy Speaker: Certainly the parliamentary secretary
is correct. I know the hon. member for Red Deer is an
experienced member and will make his remarks relevant to Bill
C-19. I am sure he was about to get to the point of the bill. I
am looking forward to hearing his remarks. After all, that is
what he said he would speak about. We look forward to what he
says.
Mr. Bob Mills: Mr. Speaker, certainly I am getting to
Bill C-19. One has to set the stage for the major points one
wants to make in an issue like this.
We are talking about listening to the people. When it comes to
labour legislation, obviously the government should be listening
to the people.
What does Bill C-19 do? Bill C-19 is an example again of that
top down, more government, more bureaucracy, more of the same
that people are sick and tired of.
I was just trying to point out to the hon. member how many
people have talked about so many issues which the government just
will not listen to. In half an hour we will probably have another
example of where the government did not listen regarding the debt
and regarding taxes. That is what people are talking about. They
are not talking about more spending.
The member made me deviate and I got off on this other tangent,
but I will now get back to what I was trying to talk about which
is Bill C-19.
What about democracy? This legislation allows the CIRB to
certify a union without support from the majority. What kind of
democracy is that where a government agency can certify a union
even though the majority do not agree with it? That is not
democratic. We have examples now of where the government will do
this sort of thing.
As well, this legislation orders employers to release to the
union names of reps who are working off site. Again they do not
have to ask the employees about that. They do not have to get
permission. This is an intrusion on a person's rights as a
citizen of Canada.
This legislation does nothing to stop strikes. It does nothing
to help the workers who are simply trying to improve their lot in
life. This again will be more of the same. There is nothing here
that will do anything to stop what both union members and
citizens at large are opposed to.
I have an example in my riding. I have been asked to speak to
union members. They have invited me but they got a decree from
head office that they could not invite me. They were shocked by
this. “What do you mean we cannot invite this person? We can
invite anybody we want”. “No you cannot”. They cannot invite
their member of Parliament to address them on the issues that
interest them. That comes from the union, from the top down. The
union members are pretty upset about that and I do not blame
them. That is a lack of democracy. That is the top down stuff I
was trying to talk about, trying to make a point of for the hon.
member.
What about the world? Where are we at in terms of the world?
Obviously in the world, we are in competition. The world has
globalized.
I have been fortunate for 35 years to travel the world. I have
been to almost every country.
Most everywhere I have been they say “Canada has a labour
problem, doesn't it?”
1600
Most recently in Japan, China and Argentina I heard “Is Canada
still producing grain? Is it still in the marketplace?” That
is a pretty terrible question to be asked if you are a farmer in
western Canada.
The unreliability of our transportation system, of our
distribution system and of our sales system is putting us behind
our competitors. Bill C-19 does nothing to help provide a fix
for that problem. That is what the farmers are saying.
The bill does not address the area of investment. When
investors are looking at Canada to invest money, to open
businesses or to develop joint ventures which are so common in
today's society they see antiquated, ambiguous labour laws. They
will point out the ambiguities and tell us they do not feel
secure investing or dealing in Canada or with Canadians on joint
ventures. They do not know for sure how stable our labour force
will be. They have real problems with that. It hurts us. It
hurts job creation and the whole investment area which is so
important to us as Canadians.
What is the solution? It seems to me that the solution is to
get back to the grassroots. We must listen to the employees.
There is no point in going after unions, saying they are good or
bad. Most of the membership are a very positive part of our
communities. The problem is the top down nature of labour
legislation, the lack of working together.
We need government, business, experts and labour to work
together for the good of Canadians.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
to begin with I would like to describe my riding because it is
important to this debate.
Nanaimo—Alberni stretches right across the centre of Vancouver
Island. We have fisheries, we have forestry and we have
retirement. In the centre, Port Alberni, which is largely
forestry oriented, a strong labour town. It is a town with
heart. It is a town which has grown through the labour movement.
It used to be a strong NDP community. Now it is a strong Reform
community.
My background is that of a professional forester. I worked in
the forest industry for 25 years. Yes, I was on the management
side but labour and management together built a good union and a
good foundation for that town.
Under this legislation a union could be certified with less than
50% of the employees being in favour of it. Frankly, it is nuts.
I can see that members opposite are agreeing with me.
It seems to fit into the Liberal idea of what democracy is. If
we can get about a third of the people, that is democracy and we
will go with it. Unfortunately that does not work in the rest of
Canada.
I am quite amazed at this government. Where are the Ontario
Liberals? There are strong unions within Ontario. The auto
workers come to mind.
I am amazed that this legislation has been allowed to get this
far without Ontario labour unions being up in arms.
They should be solidly against this legislation, and I am sure
they are.
1605
Members opposite are sitting there trying to decide why the
labour unions are in favour of it when they are not. They are
clearly in a dilemma. It is most interesting, in 25 minutes we
are going to have a budget debate. I point out that labour unions
are well paid people.
It is the taxpaying public. You should hear them muttering over
there, Mr. Speaker. It is very difficult for most Canadians to
hear because they sound like hens in the hen house busy cackling
away.
It is about investment. Investment in B.C. requires a solid
base. There cannot be a government that ignores unions, that
ignores the investment potential of any province, be it Ontario,
B.C. or Alberta, because it will be at its peril. In fact, in my
home province of B.C. we are in difficulty because the NDP
provincial government has tried that. It is now having great
difficulty getting foreign investment.
This bill died in the Senate, which I am sure most Canadians
will understand. However, the Senate does have its purpose. It
killed this bill. It killed it for a reason. The reason was it
did not work. So the new bill came in, and what have we got? Very
much of the same type of legislation. It is a gloss over of the
old type of legislation. I suspect that if this goes to the
Senate it is not going to go anywhere either.
This government has to realize that it has to listen up. Even
the Senate cannot take this type of legislation. But it is going
to try it again, to keep pushing. Maybe if it pushes it harder it
will go through again. It is not going to work.
This government has tried it on a number of types of
legislation. Look at endangered species last time in the last
Parliament. It did not go through. Why? Members on the
government side could not vote for it. Look at the conference on
global warming in Kyoto. Talk about a fiasco because this
government did not have its groundwork in order. This is typical
of this bill. Government has not done its homework. When other
countries get together, where is Canada? We do not have our act
together. We have not done our homework, very similar to this
bill.
I suggest this bill needs major refurbishment and hopefully this
government will listen up and do it before it introduces it
again.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-19 today, an act to amend the
Canadian Labour Code.
Again, it is interesting, this being the only party speaking
to this bill, how so many of us have—
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member wants to be
accurate and he just made a statement that is simply not
accurate. He said that the Reform Party was the only party
speaking to the bill—
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, it does not sound like a
point of order to me, it sounds like a point of debate. I think
the hon. member for York South—Weston knows that.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York
South—Weston does make a good point. In the last little while
the speakers have all been from the Reform Party. Certainly the
member for York South—Weston has spoken to this bill and my
credit to him for that. I am sorry for making that impression.
It is interesting how many members from this side have chosen to
speak to this important labour bill, the biggest changes to the
labour code we are likely to see in this Parliament, and how so
many people have talked about the need for balance in labour
legislation. I will add my name to the list with my little story.
1610
I was a member of the IWA labour union for some 10 years. I
also spent an equivalent amount of time in management with the
same union. In the course of that 20 year experience working in
the logging industry, much of it in a unionized setting, at the
end of my career when I started on this career, if we can call it
that, we never in the company's history had a case of a grievance
going to arbitration in all those years of work. I know what it
is like to work with a unionized crew. All my crews were
unionized.
The word balance is important. I sometimes wonder when
legislation comes before the House of Commons if there would be a
preamble to it that would describe for us what caused this
legislation to be brought forward. In other words, what was
behind this bill, who was behind it. What presentations were
made to ministers or which pressure groups, which groups of
people were behind this bill, were in favour of this bill and
pushed this bill forward, these amendments, and where did the
bill come from.
When I go through this bill and the summary of it to see what it
is trying to accomplish and what the government says it is trying
to accomplish, I do not see a balance as I had hoped to see in
labour code changes in this country. I have seen too many
headlines from newspapers talking about Liberal labour code
betrayal, last call to stand against the labour code, new labour
code rules benefit unions, and on and on. There has been a whole
series of stories in the press and from people concerned
basically with the balance.
I would like to speak a bit about the need for that balance and
why I do not think this bill contains it. First, one of the
sacred parts of the union movement is an ability to organize. It
is an ability that the Reform Party has as one of its basic
platform principles. It is the right for unions to organize, to
strike peacefully, to go about their business of representing
workers if those workers so ask them to. It is the basic policy
of this party and I think of every party in the House.
But this labour code amendment changes the balance from a secret
ballot registration on who would represent a person at the
bargaining table to if a person even signs a card that they are
interested in it, it is taken as a fait accompli. Worst yet, when
a certification vote is taking place those names are circulated
without the permission of the employees to whomever would like to
organize a union or a shop.
Mr. Speaker, if you sign your name to it or if you vote in an
honest election, that is fair game. But when your name is given
out without your permission to other people to use, for mail
outs, for telephone calls, for what could even amount to
harassment at times, that is not right. I cannot support that
portion of the bill.
There is also the huge issue of what we call remedial
certification. In other words, if some employer breaks some
technical portion of the certification process, in other words
they put up a poster on the bulletin board and they should not
have done it or they said something wrong in their company
newsletter and somebody feels that it is causing an affront to
the union organization movement, if this board decides that has
happened, it is a done deal. They are unionized whether 10%
wanted it or 15% or 39% or 49%. It is a done deal.
That is unfortunate, given that most workers would rather have
an honest vote in an honest situation where they can bring
forward their complaints and also bring forward their union
certification process without fear of intimidation or harassment
on either side. This tips it in my opinion to the wrong side.
The whole issue of how we settle strikes in an industry that has
a monopoly is not addressed properly in this bill. There are
some improvements from times past. For example, if a train load
of grain is on its way to Vancouver, to my neck of the woods,
this legislation gives a period that allows that grain to work
through the system and get dumped in the terminal and shipped
off.
The trouble is that the following strike could go on
indefinitely, holding grain producers and the country hostage
while we wait for something to solve it.
1615
Whether it is a postal strike, a grain handler strike or
whatever it might be, we have seen too often when a monopoly is
involved that we have needed an alternative way of settling those
disputes.
The dispute settling mechanism we have put forward is a form of
final offer binding arbitration that is fair to the producers,
the workers, the Canadian economy and Canadians affected by
whether or not they are in the industry. The legislation does
not give us the option other than to come back here and go to
legislation again as we did in the case of the recent postal
strike.
It would be far better to have a permanent dispute settlement
mechanism in place where there is a monopoly to protect all
segments of society: workers, producers, consumers and the
Canadian economy as a whole. It would be far better to do it
that way rather than to do it piecemeal every time there is a
significant strike or problem in any industry like that.
The bill eliminates the need for unions to report on their
financial status in a meaningful way. It removes an important
protection for workers who want to know where their dues are
being spent. They send a significant amount of money to unions.
Unions use that money in the ways they see fit to promote their
union organizations. The real problem comes when there is no
financial accountability.
Was the money spent to promote another union? Maybe that would
be something they would approve of. Was it spent to support a
political party? Who knows? We have seen ongoing court cases in
the land of people who sent in their union dues only to find they
were siphoned off and sent to a political party.
That money may not have been used to elect you, Mr. Speaker. It
may not have been used to elect me. However it has been used to
try to defeat certain candidates and to elect others. I grant
they were largely unsuccessful but it is an affront to someone
who is sending $30 or $40 a month to a union headquarters,
assuming that it will be spent for proper purposes, only to find
out it has been used in many ways to vote against the very things
that might be promoted in the union.
In general there is a need for balance in the legislation. The
balance between union rights is very important. As I mentioned
the blue book refers to the principle of union rights to
organize, to strike peacefully, to look after its members, as
well as the rights of the Canadian economy, the right to secrecy
and the right to protection of workers who do not want their
funds misused. That kind of balance is not in the legislation.
It is too bad that privacy rights are not being looked after. It
is too bad that final offer binding arbitration is not offered as
an alternative in this package. While there are some
improvements, they are not enough to garner the support of the
Reform Party and certainly not enough to garner my vote when the
bill comes up for vote.
Mr. John Duncan (Vancouver Island North, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-19 concerning amendments
to the Canada Labour Code, specifically grain loading at ports.
In my previous life I worked in a union environment in British
Columbia, the most unionized jurisdiction in Canada. I spent 20
years on the coast of British Columbia working in logging
operations. In the area I represent of Vancouver Island North
union workers are the backbone of the communities in my riding. I
very much appreciate the balance in the workplace between
management and union.
I worked in logging. Safety is a major concern in that
industry. It is one of the most dangerous occupations one would
ever want to encounter.
There are some specific jobs that are very demanding and
hazardous. The union certainly has a very large role to play in
terms of safety. Nothing brings us closer together than a
serious accident and nothing can lead more to finger pointing
afterward if there is not a strong balance—
1620
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo—Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to say that
there is a general din in the House and I am having difficulty
hearing the debate at this time.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is very difficult
for members of the House to hear the debate that is proceeding on
the floor of the House at the moment.
I would particularly ask that hon. members and members of the
public who are present to tone down the volume of noise so that
members can hear the debate.
We have a debate under way here and hon. members would like to
hear it.
Mr. John Duncan: Mr. Speaker, usually we can blame our
colleagues, but I think in this instance the gallery is filling
with people in expectation of the budget. I appreciate the
circumstances.
There is another very important aspect to what I did in the past
in terms of the union environment I worked in. We had sort of a
forerunner exercise which dealt with the environment in
environmental committees and joint union and management
committees. I became quite active in all of that because if
everyone in the workplace is not on board we certainly cannot
achieve or obtain the results we seek.
This became the basic building block in terms of bringing new
practises into the forestry industry to introduce such things as
proper treatments around stream sites, proper road construction,
proper watershed management, and those kinds of things.
I recognize that there are very good workplaces and there are
very bad workplaces. I like to think I worked in some very good
workplaces.
We have to think about what the legislation is all about. Whose
interest is at stake here? It is important to recognize that the
public interest is at stake. We do not want to replicate what we
have had up until now in many jurisdictions in Canada where the
labour environment has led us to strikes or lockouts and to very
insoluble power gains.
The community I live in is subject right now to a seven month
strike or lockout, whatever we want to call it, at the Fletcher
Challenge pulp mill. It looks intractable. It has a lot to do
with the economics of business and some very important issues
which divide union and management.
There has to be a better way. Although I recognize the bill
deals with a specific federal jurisdiction issue, and not an area
of provincial jurisdiction, certainly is not a breath of fresh
air in this regard.
Will the bill create harmonious relationships? I do not believe
there is anything in the new bill that will come anywhere near to
accomplishing that objective. Does it ensure against any
stoppages en route to the port facilities? No, it does not.
There is nothing in the bill that deals with anything of the
kind.
What we have is one more vague and ambiguous labour law that
will lead to further investor uncertainty, which we do not need,
and does nothing to create a harmonious relationship.
I find this to be very contradictory or very ironic, given that
we were in the House yesterday speaking about the multilateral
agreement on investment which, if we listen to the members on the
government side of the House, is intended to lead to investor
confidence.
1625
We cannot have contradictory philosophical underpinnings, but
time after time we are seeing no philosophical or principled
underpinning to any of the government actions. Whether it is a
multilateral agreement on investment, labour legislation,
fisheries legislation or aboriginal affairs, it is always the
same thing. It is the Liberal fudge. That is what we are
seeing.
When it comes to the Canada Labour Relations Board that is
revamped and renamed under the bill, I hoped we would have seen
something invigorating, something refreshing, something in tune
with the times, something accountable, maybe even something
elected or democratically arrived at.
What do we have here? We have one significant change. We agree
that a 10 year appointment is too long. An appointment is
probably inappropriate but the timeframe was certainly wrong. Ten
years have been brought down to five. We certainly concur with
that part of the legislation, but it is not going very far when
we look at the length and breadth of the bill.
The labour relations board will have some basic powers. It is a
quasi-judicial board. It is a board with a lot of power. The
flexibility is so great that it leads to uncertainty about what
it might or might not do.
The fact that board members are appointed by cabinet tells me
that it can be skewed in any philosophical direction the cabinet
wishes. There will be three members from management and three
members from union. That is not much of a guideline when we
think about how government can fulfil its agenda simply through
the appointment process. We have seen it before and we know we
will see it again from this government.
We know who appoints them. Do we know how much power they have?
Yes, we do. The board can actually order an employer to release
to a union representative a list of the names and addresses of
employees who work off site. I like to think that my privacy and
the privacy of Canadians is more valuable than to allow this
non-accountable appointed board to overrule my privacy.
Another point concerns me. It has to do with the interpretation
of representation. We know that is also left to labour.
1630
The Speaker: It being 4.30 p.m. the House
will now proceed to the consideration of Ways and Means Motion
No. 5 concerning the budget presentation.
* * *
[Translation]
THE BUDGET
FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE MINISTER OF FINANCE
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib) moved:
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the budget documents,
including notices of ways and means motions. The details of the
measures are contained in the documents. I am asking that an order
of the day be designated for consideration of these motions.
I am also announcing that the government will, at the first
opportunity, table bills to implement the other measures announced
in this budget.
At the outset, let me express, on behalf of the Prime Minister
and Cabinet, our gratitude to the Standing Committee on Finance and
the various committees of caucus. Their hard work has been
invaluable.
[English]
Let me just say that this budget is in many ways the product of
this caucus.
[Translation]
Let me also thank the many who have taken the time from their
day to day obligations to come forward and present their proposals
on the shape this budget should take. Yet again, they have proven
the benefits brought to budget making by simply listening to the
common sense of Canadians.
[English]
This is the first budget of a new mandate. But if the mandate
is new, our mission is not. Our goals today remain what they
were when Canadians placed their trust in us in 1993: first to
build a country of opportunity, of jobs and growth, one where
every Canadian has equal access to the avenues of success; and
second to safeguard and strengthen a caring and compassionate
society.
Canadians have always known that securing these goals would not
be easy. Canadians understood that fundamental problems require
fundamental change. They wanted clear priorities established and
they wanted a long term plan to achieve them.
In 1994 that plan was put in place. We have pursued it for more
than four years and it is paying off today. This budget marks a
further stage in that plan. It makes it very clear that our
resolve will not weaken.
This budget will demonstrate that we have left the era of
chronic deficits behind and that we are now on an irrevocable
course to reduce the debt. It is a budget that will expand
opportunity for all Canadians by making access to knowledge and
skills more affordable. It is a budget that begins to reduce
taxes, starting with those who need it most, middle and low
income Canadians.
1635
It is a budget that ensures that the balance of actions we take
reflects the balance of priorities that Canadians share and that
the values we heed are the values Canadians hold. That is our
commitment.
[Translation]
When we came into office, the country's economy was in
disarray.
The turnaround today is very evident.
Job creation is accelerating. Over the last four years, the
number of jobs has grown by over one million. In 1997 alone,
372,000 new jobs, all full time and in the private sector, were
created.
In 1993, the unemployment rate stood at 11.2 per cent. It has
fallen since then and is now below 9 per cent. While not
satisfactory, the trend is clear.
Consumer confidence has rebounded. The economic recovery is
now supported by strong domestic demand.
Business confidence is at record levels.
Investment is surging.
Stimulated by lower interest rates and renewed confidence,
economic growth reached a level in excess of 3.5 per cent in 1997
and, this year, continued strength is projected. This would mean
the best back-to-back performance for Canada in over ten years, the
strongest performance of any G-7 nation.
[English]
We live in a volatile world. Clearly the events in Asia will
have an impact. Nonetheless, let me simply say to Canadian
business, consumers, employers and workers that there has not
been a time in the past 25 years when our prospects have been
better. Furthermore, economic growth is helping to push the
deficit down dramatically. What I am about to say is something
that no Canadian government has been able to say in almost 50
years.
We will balance the budget next year. We will balance the
budget the year after that. We will balance the budget this
fiscal year.
[Translation]
For the first time in 50 years, we will have three consecutive
zero deficits: a zero deficit this year, 1997-98; a zero deficit
next year and a zero deficit in the year 2000. We are at a turning
point in our history.
[English]
This achievement is the accomplishment of Canadians, not of
government.
1640
From the outset it was Canadians who knew the dangers posed by
financial mismanagement. It was Canadians who called for firm
action. It was Canadians who united in a strong consensus that
government simply had to get on with the job. And it was
Canadians who have shown great forbearance in shouldering the
consequences of actions that have been very difficult. Canadians
can be very proud today. This is their victory.
It is clear that a new era lies ahead. And because of that, we
owe it to Canadians to repeat now what our principles will be as
we go forward.
First, we will stay the course that brought us here. We will be
frugal. The battle to root out waste and inefficiency can never
end. Never again will we allow the spectre of overspending to
haunt this land. Never again will we let old habits return
defining bigger government as better government, of believing
that every problem requires another program. Never again will we
see Canadians undergo round after round of painful cuts in order
to dig us out of yet another hole.
Canadians have paid to see the movie “The Deficit”. They do
not want to pay again to see the sequel.
Second, we will be focused in everything we do. The core
priority of government must be to set the national agenda. It
can never again fall into the old trap of trying to be all things
to all people, of having so many priorities that in fact it has
none.
Third, we will be steadfast. The challenges facing the country
are deeply rooted. They are not the stuff of quick fixes. That
is why as before, each budget will build on steps taken
previously so that what may seem like small steps at the time
will in the end become much larger steps, for we must look to the
longer term needs of the nation.
[Translation]
Fourth, we must work in partnership. Acting alone, in
isolation, is no longer on. Working together respects the reality
that we each have a role to play—whether as governments,
business, labour or the voluntary sector. But we must work
together.
Fifth, we must be balanced and we must be fair. Canadians
know that there is more to taking care of the nation than simply
taking care of the books. Canada is not just a marketplace. It is
a community. Our country is anchored in shared risk and shared
benefits,
in lending a hand knowing that, some day, we too may be in need.
That is the spirit that built this land.
It was that spirit we saw when the country came together to
help those devastated by the Saguenay flood. It was there again
when the Red River struck. And it was there as hands reached out
from across Canada to offer assistance in the aftermath of the ice
storm last month.
[English]
The Canadian spirit of coming together is not something that
only appears now and then in response to great natural disasters
or disruptions. It abides. It is there in every community. It
is there in every corner of the country. It is there every day.
And it is there in the great national programs that have come to
define who we are and who we want to become.
That is why this budget provides resources for the national AIDS
strategy. That is why we established a healing fund to address
the terrible legacy of abuse suffered by so many aboriginal young
people in residential schools. And that is why we are committed
without reservation to sustaining and strengthening the Canadian
system of health care.
1645
In 1995 when the country's fiscal back was to the wall we took
some very difficult decisions and we recognize this. That is why
the very first action we took when our progress on the deficit
became clear was to increase the floor under the cash transfers
to the provinces in support of health and other programs from $11
billion to $12.5 billion annually. This is the single largest
expenditure accounted for in this budget. Indeed, going beyond
today's projections between now and the year 2002, the provinces
will receive an additional $7 billion in transfer payments from
the federal government for health and other programs.
Frugality, focus, steadfastness, looking to the long term,
partnership, fairness, these are the principles that underlie our
plan. What I would now like to do is to demonstrate how these
principles will be applied to the sound economic management of
the country.
First, we have said right from the beginning that one of the
central economic priorities of government must be to ensure that
monetary and fiscal policy work hand in hand so that they
reinforce rather than run up against one another. To that end,
upon coming into office the government and the Bank of Canada
agreed to hold inflation inside a range of 1% to 3% to the end of
1998. That policy has worked. Inflation is under firm control
and will remain so in the future.
That is why we are announcing today that we will extend the
current agreement with the Bank of Canada for a further three
years. Canada has now established a reputation as a low
inflation country. It is a reputation and a reality we will
protect.
Next, let me turn to the issue of the debt. We have won a major
battle. We have not yet won the war. More than 25 years of
deficits have left us with a debt burden that is far too high.
Every dollar that goes to service the debt is a dollar that
cannot go to health care or tax relief. Quite simply, the debt
burden must be brought down and in fact that has already begun to
occur.
[Translation]
The best measure of the debt burden is to consider the size of
the debt in relation to the size of the economy that supports it.
This measure is called the debt-to-GDP ratio—what we owe in
relation to what we produce. The lower the ratio, the more
manageable the debt.
In 1996-97, the debt-to-GDP ratio fell meaningfully for the
first time in more than 20 years. It will fall again this year
even more and, over the next two years, the pace of improvement
will continue.
Our commitment is to keep the debt burden coming down steadily,
permanently, irrevocably.
It will be brought down through the implementation of a
two-track strategy.
First, we will continue to follow policies that will pay off
in better economic growth.
Second, we will bring down the absolute level of debt itself.
[English]
This is our debt repayment plan. First, we will continue as
before to present two year fiscal plans based on prudent economic
assumptions. We will continue to be consistently more cautious
than our private sector forecasters. In the first two years of
this plan as set out in this budget we are committed to back to
back balanced budgets.
Second, we will continue to build into our financial plans a
buffer, a $3 billion contingency reserve.
Third, if as in each of the last three years the contingency
reserve is not needed, it will go directly to paying down the
debt.
1650
This is how since coming into office we have brought the deficit
down year after year after year, and this is how in the future we
will bring the debt down year after year after year.
[Translation]
Indeed, that process is already under way.
There are two principal ways to calculate the deficit.
The first, the method we use in Canada, is considered to be one of
the most rigorous in the world. It includes all the liabilities the
government incurs over the course of a year.
The second measure, used by other countries like the United States,
the United Kingdom and Japan, includes only the borrowing that the
government makes in financial markets.
According to this measure, Canada recorded a financial surplus last
year.
And according to this international comparison, Canada is in the
best fiscal health of the G-7.
Of even greater significance, as shown in the monthly numbers being
released today, is the fact that, so far this year, we have actually
paid down debt previously borrowed in financial markets by almost $13
billion.
[English]
Ours is a country of great opportunity. What we must do is
strive to be a country of equal opportunity as well. All
Canadians do not begin life at the same starting line. For some
the race is virtually won before it is begun. For many others it
clearly is not. Circumstance and privilege can create a playing
field which is very uneven. What we must understand is that when
individual Canadians are deprived of the opportunity of reaching
their full potential, then the country is deprived of the
opportunity of reaching its full potential.
Some seem to believe there is nothing government can do. Some
seem to believe that we should just unleash the market, let loose
the forces of change and abandon those whom opportunity has
passed by. That view is not ours.
A rising economic tide does not lift all boats. There are many
Canadians who for many reasons do not enjoy the opportunities
that others do but who would grasp them immediately and lift
themselves up if only given the chance. That is why in this and
previous budgets we have enhanced assistance to those with
disabilities, Canadians who do not seek special rights but simply
equal citizenship. That is why we have increased support for
charitable groups, given the enormous role played by the
voluntary sector in helping Canadians and enriching our
communities.
Equal access to opportunity is a question of fairness, of
fundamental social justice, but it is also about the fundamental
economic challenge we face, the challenge of jobs.
For 200 years in Canada prosperity and knowledge have gone hand
in hand. However, let us understand the true nature of the
dynamic that is at play. As a society we are not educated
because we are prosperous. We are prosperous because we have
extended the frontiers of education. Today more than ever
getting a good job and achieving a higher standard of living
require even greater skills and broader knowledge.
[Translation]
The creation of jobs in the new millennium will be anchored in two
essential components: the infrastructure of innovation, and the
infrastructure of skills and knowledge.
In today's evolving world—to get a job, to keep a job, to move
on to a better job—there is only one resource that will equip
Canadians to succeed, and that is to develop the very best skills they
can.
1655
Learning must be the central part of any national jobs strategy.
[English]
In a very real way, the ability to learn must be the central
part of any national job strategy.
[Translation]
The facts speak for themselves.
For example, those who graduated from university, community college
and vocational institutes enjoy incomes 45 per cent higher than those
who did not complete high school.
During the last recession, for those with only high school, 640,000
jobs were lost. However, for those with degrees or diplomas, 450,000
jobs were gained.
Thus it is not surprising that the unemployment rate for those with
less than a high school diploma is 15 per cent, while for those with a
university degree, it is only 5 per cent.
[English]
However, this is by no means only about university. It is about
every community college and every vocational and technical
institute in the country.
The demand for knowledge and skills spans all occupations at all
levels and in all sectors, from factory to farm, from software to
sales and from medicine to mechanics. Nor is this only about
young people, it is also about the need to upgrade skills and
develop new ones consistently throughout all of our working
lives.
Furthermore, if knowledge and skills underpin a strong economy,
so too they underpin a strong society and a secure society.
The backbone of a country is the strength of its middle class.
There is no better way to reduce the gap between the rich and
the poor, no surer way to widen the mainstream, no more
meaningful way to reduce the numbers of those left behind and no
better way to provide a higher quality of life for Canadians than
to facilitate the path to higher education.
Quite simply, every Canadian who wants to learn should have the
opportunity to do so.
Yet today from Corner Brook to Coquitlam there are tens of
thousands who do not have that opportunity. It is a fact that
students from lower income families are under represented in our
institutions of higher learning and the fault line widens every
time a young Canadian is denied access to the skills they need,
not because the courses are too hard but because the costs are
too high.
Too many are deterred from pursuing higher education because of
a fear of large debt. Too many who have made the decision to go
forward are struggling with rising costs and too many parents
worry that they will not be able to save for their children's
future.
It is a great irony and a greater tragedy that at the very
moment when the country cannot afford to do without higher
leaning it is becoming more difficult than ever to afford.
[Translation]
Now, before proceeding further, let me be very clear on one point.
Education is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. It is the
provinces that are responsible for the curriculum, for educational
institutions, for quality.
We are not talking here of the content of what is taught. What we
are talking about is equal access to opportunity. Indeed, what we are
dealing with is the responsibility of all governments and all sectors of
society to ensure that Canada builds on its strengths in an increasingly
competitive and interdependent world economy.
Each of us must do our part. We will only be truly successful in
creating opportunity for all if we act in partnership, a partnership of
parents, of educators, of the private sector, and of provincial and
federal governments.
In that partnership, some roles are exclusive. Others are shared.
1700
For decades, both the federal government and the provinces have
played their part in providing equality of access to those in financial
need.
Today, as demands evolve, we must strengthen and adapt that
assistance to better ensure that all Canadians are provided an equal
opportunity to participate in the knowledge-based economy of the future.
Why? Because the need is so great. Because the cause is so clear.
Let me quote directly from the communiqué issued by the Prime
Minister and the provincial premiers at their meeting last December.
“The First Ministers agree on the importance of lessening students'
financial burden.
Furthermore, it is agreed that the Minister of Finance and the Minister
of Human Resources Development will accelerate work in concert with
provincial and territorial Education Ministers so that the Minister of
Finance can take account of this work in the next federal
budget”.
Today we are taking action in response to that consensus and that
request.
I would like to set out the Canadian Opportunities Strategy—a
co-ordinated set of measures building on the thrust of the last
budget, designed to create opportunity by expanding access to
lifelong learning.
Action is required on seven fronts.
First, promoting access by helping students in financial need cope
with rising costs.
Second, helping those who have graduated manage growing debt
burdens.
Third, providing Canadians with access to the financial resources
required to upgrade their skills throughout their career.
Fourth, assisting families to save for their children's education.
Fifth, supporting graduate and post-graduate students so that they
can continue to develop their skills and do the research that will pay
off for the whole country.
Sixth, helping young people make the transition from school to
work.
Finally, connecting Canadians, young and old, rural and urban, to
the technology of the information age and all the knowledge it makes
possible.
[English]
The Canadian opportunity strategy which we are outlining today
helps move Canada forward on all seven of these fronts.
First, last fall in the House the Prime Minister said, and I
quote, “There can be no greater millennium project for Canada
and no better role for government than to help young Canadians
prepare for the knowledge based society of the next century”.
Then he went on to call for a major investment to provide
thousands of scholarships to deserving Canadian students. In
this budget the Prime Minister's commitment and vision become
reality.
Today we are announcing the largest single investment every made
by a federal government to support access to post-secondary
education for all Canadians. The Canadian millennium foundation,
a private independent institution, is being created. The
government will provide the foundation with an initial 10 year
endowment of $2.5 billion. As a private foundation it will be
able to receive donations and bequests from across the country.
1705
This investment will provide over 100,000 scholarships to low
and middle income students each and every year over the course of
the next decade. The scholarships will average $3,000 each per
year. As a result, a student receiving a scholarship over four
years will see his or her debt load cut by $12,000, half what it
otherwise would have been.
These scholarships will be awarded to Canadians of all ages,
part time as well as full time students. Those attending all
publicly funded institutions, not simply universities but
colleges, CEGEPs and vocational and technical institutions, will
be able to apply. Canada millennium scholarships will be for the
students at Durham College in Oshawa and the Northern Alberta
Institute of Technology in Edmonton just as much as they will be
for those at Université de Montréal or Dalhousie.
Many Canadians would like to be able to attend college or
university outside their hometown or home province at an
institution of their own choosing, but today rising costs make
that less and less of a possibility. We believe that more
Canadians should have the opportunity to attend the institution
that best meets their needs. We also believe that Canadians
should get to know their country better.
Therefore. recipients of the Canada millennium scholarships who
want to travel or study outside of their hometowns or home
provinces will be provided with the help to do so.
[Translation]
The Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation will be a private,
independent body. It will be managed by a board of directors, each and
every one of whom will be a private citizen. They, not the government,
will decide how best to design the scholarships within the mandate they
are given.
The Council of Ministers of Education, representing the provinces,
as well as representatives of the education community, will be given a
key role in identifying who the directors should be. We will ensure that
a student is on the board.
Once established, the Foundation will consult very closely with
provincial governments and the education community. The goal will be: to
award scholarships by the Foundation to individuals in a manner that
avoids duplication, to build on existing provincial needs assessment
processes, to complement existing provincial programs. The legislation
creating the Foundation will provide it with the administrative
flexibility required to meet these objectives.
In particular, the Foundation will have the authority, subject to
mutually agreed needs, merit and mobility criteria, to contract with
appropriate provincial authorities for the selection of those recipients
in a province to whom the Foundation will award Canada Millennium
Scholarships.
Above all, we must significantly increase access to post-secondary
education for low- and middle-income students.
[English]
This investment in the future of our country is the result of
Canada's successful battle against the deficit. It is an
investment that will pay for itself over and over again in the
years ahead. The Prime Minister stated it best last fall:
I hope this can do in the 21st century for our economy and our
country what the investment after World War II in post-secondary
education for our returning soldiers did for our economy and our
country in the last half of the 20th century—This will not be a
millennium monument made of bricks and mortar, but when future
Canadians look around they will see its legacy everywhere.
1710
Canadians do not need to be told that student debt has become a
major problem. Students know it. Families know it. Graduates
must deal with it.
In 1990, only eight years ago, the average debt load after a
four year program was $13,000. By next year it will almost have
doubled to $25,000. At the beginning of this decade fewer than
8% of borrowers had debts larger than $15,000. Now almost 40%
do.
Students are graduating with a mortgage before they can even
consider buying a house and for many, before they have been able
to land a job. There are few students who do not find the burden
of loan repayment to be a difficult one.
Businesses are able to deduct the interest cost of buying
equipment when investing in their future. We believe that
individual Canadians should receive similar treatment when
investing in their future.
Therefore, this budget announces that for the first time ever
all students will be given tax relief on interest payments on
their student loans. This will be provided through a tax credit
which can be carried forward for five years.
Mr. Speaker, to simply give you an example, for students just
graduating with a loan of $25,000 this will mean a reduction of
$530 in their taxes in the first year alone. Over a 10 year
paydown of the average student loan this could mean as much as
$3,200 in tax relief. This measure will help one million
Canadians who are repaying their student loans.
That being said, there are those who need even greater
assistance in shouldering a debt burden that is simply too large
for them to handle alone. To help these individuals, additional
changes will be made to provide further interest rate relief on
their loans and for longer periods of time. These changes will
benefit up to 100,000 graduates in financial hardship.
Finally, for most, these measures will be sufficient. However,
there will still be a very small minority who despite interest
relief cannot cope with their debts. For these people, after
careful examination of all of the circumstances, the principal
amount of the loan itself will be reduced so that payments are
more affordable. This form of help will be considered five years
after individuals have ended their studies.
The measures we are announcing today will help greatly to ensure
that Canadian students are not mired in a swamp of debt from
which they can never escape. However, in order to ensure that
Canada student loans continue to provide as much assistance as
they can to those who need it, we will be taking steps to ensure
that both educational institutions and students use the program
as it is intended.
[Translation]
The costs of study are a challenge for many Canadians, but
there are some for whom the problem is particularly acute. We all
know young people who made the decision early in life to have a
family and as a result were unable to continue their education.
Many are women who are today heading single-parent families.
1715
Today, many want to return to their studies to improve their
prospects and those of their children. Given the family obligations
they have, the road ahead can be a very rough one indeed.
Therefore, in order to expand opportunities for these
Canadians, we are announcing today that new grants of up to $3,000
per year will be made available to over 25,000 students in
financial need who have children. These grants will help them
whether they pursue their studies full time or on a part-time
basis.
[English]
Canadians know that their ability to continue earning depends on
their ability to continue learning. There are a growing number
of part time students, the majority of whom are having a very
difficult time trying to manage the difficult balance between
work, family and study. We have already announced that part time
students will be eligible for Canada millennium scholarships and
those with children for special grants.
Today we are announcing two additional steps to support part
time studies. The education credit is one of the major ways
government provides tax assistance to students. It helps with
the living expenses of those in university, community college or
vocational school. Up until now this has been available only to
full time students. We are announcing today that for the first
time part time students will have access to the education credit
as well. This will assist 250,000 students who could not take
advantage of this credit before.
Next, the 1996 budget enabled full time students who are parents
to claim the child care expense deduction against all types of
income. Today we are making part time students as well eligible
for that deduction. Fifty thousand students will benefit from
this action.
As a result of these two measures, the tax savings for a typical
part time student with two young children will more than triple
from $300 to almost $1,000 a year.
There is more to be done. Many Canadians already in the
workforce need and want to upgrade their skills through full time
study, yet many do not have reasonable access to the financial
resources this requires. Today we are moving forward to help
meet this challenge.
Effective January 1, 1999 Canadians will be able to make tax
free withdrawals from their RRSPs to support full time education
and training.
There are few things more critical to ensuring an adequate
income in retirement than ensuring a good income when working.
Providing opportunity to improve skills is an important way to
make sure that happens.
The office worker who wishes to enhance their computer skills,
the assembly line worker who wants to retrain as a machinist,
these Canadians and more will now have access to a resource,
their RRSP, that until now they were prevented from using.
[Translation]
Much of what we have announced so far concerns today's
immediate needs.
But we must look ahead to the students of tomorrow.
Part of the answer lies in the over 100,000 Canada Millennium
Scholarships that will be awarded each year. Part of the answer
lies in assisting parents to prepare and plan for their children's
future education.
Today, Canadians are already saving for their children in many
ways. Some buy bonds. Some set up special bank accounts. Many
simply set aside a bit of money whenever they can. Grandparents,
aunts and uncles put money away at birthdays and at Christmas.
One way government assists Canadians in saving for their
children's education is by supporting registered education savings
plans—RESPs. Money placed in these plans grows tax free until
the child is ready to go on to college, to a vocational institute
or to university.
1720
[English]
Over the past two years we more than doubled the annual
contribution limit for RESPs. Today we are taking a significant
further step.
Today marks the beginning of a new partnership with parents. We
believe that government has a role to play investing alongside
those who seek to save for their children's education.
Therefore, effective January 1 of this year the government will
provide a Canada education savings grant to supplement new
contributions made to RESPs. For every dollar contributed by a
parent or other up to an amount of $2,000 a year the federal
government will provide a Canada education savings grant equal to
20% of the total and this money will be paid directly into the
child's plan.
If contributors are unable to save the full amount in any
particular year they will be able to carry the unpaid amounts
forward, allowing them to catch up in later years.
Let me illustrate the impact of saving with a Canada education
savings grant beginning when a child is three. If parents were
to save, let us say, $25 every two weeks through an automatic
deduction from their paycheque, even if prudently invested, their
child beginning at age 18 would receive $4,700 each year for four
years to finance his or her schooling. Of that amount, almost
$800 a year would be the direct result of the Canada education
savings grant we are announcing today.
As a result of the initiatives we are taking, RESPs will now be
among the most attractive savings vehicles available for a
child's education. We believe that RESPs will soon come to be
considered as essential for future planning as registered
retirement savings plans are now.
They represent one of the best things parents can do for their
children, one of the best things grandparents can do for their
grandchildren. They speak to the partnership of generations.
There can be few things more critical to determining our
economic success in the next century than a vigorous, broad based
research and development effort. The fact is the more R and D
that is done in Canada, the more jobs that will be created for
Canadians. That is why, for instance, we created the Canada
Foundation for Innovation last year, to provide the facilities at
our hospitals, our universities and our colleges that will
support world class research.
This year we are providing new support for researchers
themselves so that the best and the brightest can realize their
dreams and fulfil their promise right here in Canada. They will
do so by opening up new frontiers of knowledge in medicine and in
the natural and the social sciences.
[Translation]
For two decades, the government's granting councils—the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the
Medical Research Council of Canada and the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada—have provided crucial
support for these researchers and their projects.
For example, Dr. John Polanyi, Nobel Prize winner and inventor
of the chemical laser, has been a recipient of such
support throughout his career.
So, too, has Dr. Fernand Labrie of Laval University whose research
work on enzymes and hormones has opened up vast possibilities for
the treatment of breast and prostate cancers.
As we brought the deficit down, many difficult choices were
made. One of these was a reduction in funding for the granting
councils. That is why I am very happy to announce today that,
effective April 1, their budgets will be restored to their original
1994-95 levels. In the years ahead, these resources will grow
further. Indeed, by the end of the year 2001, they will have
received more than $400 million in additional resources and their
budgets will be at their highest level ever.
1725
[English]
The youth unemployment problem remains grave in this country.
As we have just seen, an important part of the answer lies in
higher education. However, too many of our young people still
confront the dilemma they know only too well: no experience, no
job; no job, no experience.
To help address this problem, the government launched a youth
employment strategy in February last year. As part of that
strategy, more than 120,000 career summer placements and over
50,000 internships are being created over a two year period.
Clearly the private sector is the engine of job creation and
many employers are rising to the challenge of helping to hire and
train more youth. However, much more remains to be done. Many
more employers must rise to the challenge if it is to be
overcome.
Therefore today we are introducing two measures that we believe
will support the private sector and others in this endeavour.
They, along with the measures announced today and others
previously taken, are part of what we believe must become a
country-wide effort to deal head on with the problem of youth
unemployment.
First, we are announcing that over the next two years employment
insurance premiums paid by employers will be eliminated for new
jobs they create for young Canadians between the ages of 18 and
24.
Second, we recognize that the challenge of finding a job is
toughest for those who have dropped out of school. For these
people the need for skills is great, and on the job training is
often the best way to develop them.
Today Youth Service Canada is helping over 5,000 unemployed
young Canadians get work experience in local businesses and
community based projects. The results are there. One year after
completing their Youth Service Canada work experience, 85% of
participants had found work or had returned to school.
Therefore in this budget we are more than doubling the resources
devoted to this program in order to assist those, particularly
between ages 20 and 24, who have not completed high school. Wage
subsidies of up to $10,000 will be provided to give them the kind
of work experience that is key to long term employment.
[Translation]
Computer skills have now joined reading, writing and
arithmetic as one of the basics of learning. Having access to a
computer puts the world literally at one's fingertips. There are
two programs in place to give Canadians access to the technology
and knowledge that makes it all possible.
First, SchoolNet, introduced by the government four years ago,
is bringing the Internet into the classroom, making it a vital
learning tool in every school in Canada. It allows students to
access huge volumes of material in a matter of seconds—making
learning more satisfying and teaching more effective.>
The Computers for Schools Initiative, which is part of
SchoolNet, donates thousands of computers to schools across the
country, helping our children develop computer literacy at an early
age, the easiest time to learn.
Second, the Community Access Program is bringing Canada on-line.
Five thousand communities and libraries are being connected. Five
thousand more sites await.
The goal of both these programs is to make sure that, no matter
where Canadians live, no matter how small a town, how small a
school, rich or poor, every student—indeed every citizen—has
access to the same storehouse of knowledge.
1730
To bring that goal ever closer to realization, the government
is significantly increasing the resources available to both
SchoolNet and the Community Access Program. There will be
additional investment as well for CANARIE, Canada's world-leading
research effort into next-generation communications networks.
This unique and extensive private and public sector consortium
will enable Canada to put in place the world's fastest
coast-to-coast information network, accessible to schools,
communities and businesses. At the dawn of the information
economy, this will provide Canada with an important leg up on the
rest of the world.
[English]
Let me summarize what the Canadian opportunities strategy means
for Canadians.
For the student at college or university or vocational
institute, the Canadian opportunities strategy means a
comprehensive system of scholarships, study grants, student loans
and tax credits. For the graduate coping with student loans it
means a new tax credit to support repayment and new loan relief
if they are in a situation of financial hardship.
For the worker seeking to renew his or her skills, whether
through part time or full time study, whether at university,
college or vocational institute, it means increased support that
will now be available for students of all ages, plus the
opportunity to draw on RRSPs to increase earning capacity.
For parents and grandparents it means the Canada education
savings grant which will make RESPs the best way by far to save
for a child's future education.
For post-graduate students and researchers it means greater
support of their important work through the granting councils.
For young persons having difficulty joining the workforce it
means new opportunities to gain practical work experience.
For children as well as communities across Canada, it means new
access to computer technology and computer networks.
The Canadian opportunities strategy is based on a very
straightforward proposition: that people, regardless of their
income level, who are serious about getting an education should
have that opportunity. That is their right. It is our duty and
it is a responsibility that we are acting upon today.
We have just been discussing the role of education in assuring
equality of opportunity. But let us be very clear. The capacity
to learn does not begin in school. It is dependent on the caring
and the nurturing provided the smallest infant. The fact is
equality of opportunity means a good start at home. That is why
over the past year the federal, provincial and territorial
governments have begun to build a national child benefit system
which will play a key role in fighting poverty so as to help
provide that good start.
As a first step, in our last budget we allocated $850 million to
increase federal child benefits. This funding begins to flow in
July of this year through the new Canada child tax benefit. It
will increase support to over one million children and their
families.
Last spring we said that as soon as we could afford to do more,
we would. Today we are. As part of the national child benefit
system, we are allocating a further $850 million to enrich the
child tax benefit over the next two years: $425 million as of
July 1999 and $425 million as of July in the year 2000.
Details of these improvements will be announced after discussions
with the provinces.
1735
Next, we believe that government must recognize and support all
Canadian families in their desire to provide quality care for
their children. We know that the vast majority of working
Canadians belong to two earner families. While those parents are
away at work they want the very best care for their children. We
also know that the costs of childcare can be high and that they
are increasing.
Therefore, in this budget we are increasing the limit on the
childcare expense deduction from $5,000 to $7,000 for children
under age 7, and from $3,000 to $4,000 for children aged 7 to 16.
For a parent earning $45,000 and paying $14,000 for the care of
two preschool children, this measure will reduce their costs by
$1,600 a year. The increased childcare expense deductions will
provide needed assistance to 65,000 Canadians with children.
One of the defining features of a secure society is its will and
capacity to provide a secure retirement income for its senior
citizens. One of the most important policy initiatives ever
undertaken in Canada was the decision over three decades ago to
establish the Canada pension plan.
The CPP is about our values as a nation. It is about the
sharing of risk and the security of benefits.
Last year we and the provinces as joint stewards came together
and agreed on a package of reforms to preserve the CPP and
enabling legislation was passed by this Parliament. The CPP is
now secure.
We can say to every Canadian who is 60 years old, the CPP will
be there for you. We can say to every Canadian who is 40 years
old, the CPP will be there for you. And we can say with
confidence to every young Canadian, many of whom have not
believed that public pensions would survive, the CPP will also be
there for you.
In the months ahead we will move on to the next stage of
preserving our pension system. Legislation will be introduced to
put in place the seniors benefit which in the early years of the
next century will replace the current system of old age security
and the guaranteed income supplement, the second pillar of our
retirement income system.
The seniors benefit will fully protect the pensions of all
current seniors and near seniors. It will ensure that all those
in need receive as much, if not more, than they would under the
current system. We have consulted with seniors and other
interested groups on the detail of this reform. They have raised
some very important points concerning the package that was first
put forward in 1996. We have listened very carefully. Their
points are being given every consideration.
Let me now turn to the question of taxation. Let me begin by
reaffirming our goal. It is to reduce taxes. It is to leave
more money in the pockets of hard working Canadians.
A government's tax policy must be an essential element of its
overall social and economic policy. Our tax policy is crystal
clear.
First, our financial resources are limited. Therefore targeted
tax reductions aimed at critical social and economic concerns
must be the first priority.
Second, as financial resources permit, general tax relief will
be provided, the priority being personal income taxes for middle
and low income Canadians.
Third, the tax system must be fair. This means Canadians should
pay taxes consistent with their capacity to pay. And we must
ensure that all taxes owing are indeed paid.
1740
[Translation]
From the beginning, we have provided targeted tax relief where the
need is greatest and the impact the largest.
In past budgets, for example, we have increased tax assistance for
students, for charities, for persons with disabilities, and for the
children of working parents with low incomes. In this budget, the
process of targeted assistance is being continued.
Many of the measures we have announced as part of the Canadian
Opportunities Strategy will, in fact, be delivered through the tax
system, as will the new support for families under the Canada Child Tax
Benefit and the child care expense deduction.
In addition, we are announcing the following targeted tax measures.
First, the number of self-employed Canadians is growing daily. Many
operate through unincorporated businesses. However, unlike those
businesses that are incorporated, they cannot deduct the premiums they
pay for their supplemental health and dental plans. This is unfair.
Starting this year, self-employed Canadians will be able to deduct these
premiums from their business income.
[English]
We recognize as well that there is an unprecedented number of
Canadians, mostly women, who are today providing care for family
members at home, very often an elderly parent or a disabled
child. The support they provide is irreplaceable.
In recognition of this the government is introducing a new
federal tax credit of up to $400. This will increase or extend
assistance to well over 400,000 caregivers. Together with the
GST/HST exemption proposed in this budget for respite care, our
goal is to enhance federal support for Canadians striving to meet
the growing demands of caring for family members with an
infirmity or a disability.
Finally, as witnessed over the past year in floods and the ice
storm, it is important to recognize the extraordinary service
provided by the thousands of Canadians who register as volunteers
in our communities, mostly rural, as has been pointed out by
caucus, and who provide essential emergency services such as
firefighting and first aid. They give concrete meaning to the
concept of good citizenship. To support them, the tax free
allowance for volunteer firefighters will be doubled from $500 to
$1,000. This allowance is extended to all other emergency
service volunteers effective January 1.
With the books balanced it is now possible to consider broader
tax measures. Very clearly, at the outset these measures must be
modest for the financial dividend that makes them possible is
modest as well. We simply cannot put in jeopardy either Canada's
regained fiscal health or the country's priorities such as health
care, education and public pensions.
Equally clearly, as a matter of fundamental fairness, our first
focus must be on low and middle income Canadians. The place to
start therefore is with those least able to pay taxes.
First, personal tax credits serve the purpose of greater tax
fairness by ensuring that no tax is paid on a basic amount of
income. Therefore, as of July 1 of this year, we are raising the
amount of income that can be earned by a low income single
Canadian by $500 and by $1,000 for a family, before they pay one
penny of tax.
As a result, 400,000 people will be removed from the tax rolls
completely.
1745
Second, in 1986 the previous government subjected all Canadians
to a 3% general surtax, a tax on tax, which it said would bring
the deficit down. The deficit went up. The surtax remained on.
Today we are announcing the elimination of the deficit. Today,
for 13 million middle income Canadians, we are eliminating the
surtax.
[Translation]
Today, we are announcing the elimination of the deficit. And today,
for 13 middle-income million Canadians, we are eliminating the surtax.
[English]
Effective July 1, taxpayers earning between $50,000 and $65,000
will see the surtax reduced and 83% of all taxpayers, those
earning up to $50,000, will see it eliminated in its entirety.
Taken together, the last two measures will provide tax relief
for up to 14 million Canadians and 90% of all taxpayers. In
total, the general tax relief and the targeted tax measures that
we are announcing today, primarily to low and middle income
Canadians, amount to $7 billion over the next three years.
These tax measures are a first step. Looking ahead, we will
build upon them as we can. We will do so with the nation's
economic and social needs very much at the forefront of our
consideration. We will do so in a measured and responsible way.
Let there be no doubt, as soon as we can afford it taxes will be
further reduced.
[Translation]
This then is our budget. It represents the second stage of the
plan we put in place in 1994. It has three parts.
First, in previous budgets, we reduced the deficit. With this
budget, we have balanced the books and have begun the process of debt
reduction. In future budgets, we will stay the course.
Second, we have invested in the future. Over 80 per cent of our
new spending initiatives reflect the highest priorities of
Canadians—access to knowledge and skills, support for health and
education through increased transfers to the provinces.
Furthermore, we will accomplish this while at the same time
maintaining a tight control on our expenditures.
In fact, in this budget, Canada's program spending as a share of GDP,
will fall to its lowest level in 50 years.
Third, we have reduced taxes initially in a targeted way and, as
soon as the country's resources permit, we will broaden and deepen the
process.
[English]
This plan is not only simply a theme for one budget or one year.
It has defined our approach from the beginning. It will define
our approach in the future.
However, as I draw to a close, let me conclude not by
summarizing the measures contained in this budget but by
describing the challenges those measures are designed to meet.
1750
Today we cannot pretend that our task is over. It is not. If
Canadians have accomplished a great financial turnaround, there
are greater things still that need to be done. We dare not coast
now. We cannot let go.
The fact is that in this age of globalization and technological
change we hear constantly about barriers that are being brought
down, about new markets that are being opened up. This is true
and it is tremendously exciting, but the fact is as well that
Canadians have come to fear that our capacity to shape our own
destiny is disappearing and that their country has become like a
small boat sailing on rough and uncharted seas.
[Translation]
In an era of restructuring and downsizing, Canadians have come to
wonder whatever happened to the once solid link between growth in the
economy and growth in their incomes.
After decades of runaway deficits, Canadians have feared that their
health care, their pensions, their system of education risked becoming
mere shadows of their former selves—frail and fading, no longer
strong and secure.
Well, there is a new destiny we must design for ourselves.
[English]
Globalization and technological change are a reality. They are
not a religion. They are a fact. They are not a faith. We
commit a very serious mistake if we ever come to believe that the
global economy abroad means that there is no role, no
responsibility on the part of government to provide opportunity
and security at home.
In the era of great change our core programs, our core
institutions, our core values are more important than ever. They
hold us together. They give Canadians the security and the
confidence they deserve. They equip the country to succeed, and
succeed we will.
We believe on this side of the House that the strength of a
nation's agenda lies in its balance, not in its extremes. The
fact is we have not balanced the budget in spite of having taken
a balanced approach. We have done so precisely because we have
taken a balanced approach.
This is not about compromise. This is not about trying to be
all things to all people. It is about meeting the diverse needs
of a modern nation. It is about managing the present while at
the same time preparing for the future. We do not believe that
our society and our economy should be left to twist in the winds
of globalization. We must make change work for us or else we
will end up working for it. That frames our challenge.
[Translation]
Some countries have great natural resources, others have impressive
technological capacity, still others have vast human resources. We have
all three.
That is why our goal must be to make Canada, not just a participant
in the modern economy, but a world leader. A country which provides its
citizens with access to the highest standard of living and the widest
scope of opportunities possible.
[English]
Our responsibility as we go forward is very clear. It is to
balance the budget but it is also to bring forth budgets that are
balanced. It is to work to build not simply an economy of growth
but also to safeguard a society that is fair. Our challenge
today is to put our values to work in new ways for a new century.
It is to turn opportunity for some into opportunity for all.
That is what this budget seeks. That is what we will strive for
in each and every year that lies ahead, for that is the
foundation on which a great nation is built.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
1755
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, in about three minutes I will formerly move adjournment
of the budget debate until tomorrow, but before doing so I would
be remiss if I did not say that congratulations are in order
concerning the fact that for the first time in 28 years the
federal budget is to be balanced.
Some members opposite, most of whom have resisted budget
balancing throughout their entire careers, appear to feel that
these congratulations are owed to them. What an illusion.
I half expect the finance minister to show up tomorrow with his
arm in a sling, having patted himself on the back so many times
that he has dislocated his shoulder.
The budget figures themselves plainly show that the federal
budget has been balanced primarily on the backs of long suffering
Canadian taxpayers, taxpayers who are now contributing more than
$30 billion per year to the federal coffers than when the
government took office.
If it is the taxpayers of Canada who have contributed the most
to balancing the budget, then it is those taxpayers who should be
the first to receive the rewards of a balanced budget and it is
they who should receive the greatest reward.
One would have expected a grateful government, a grateful
minister, to have first devoted any surplus to meeting the
priorities of those taxpayers, which are debt reduction and tax
relief. Sad to say, this budget does not provide that reward.
Hon. members have not heard this, but they will hear it now. The
story of the budget in brief is that there is no serious effort
to tackle the debt. Spending is up by $11 billion over the next
four years. I would ask Liberal members to listen to the last
point because they were not told this in caucus. While tax
relief measures amounting to $7 billion are offered over the next
three years, total taxes paid by all taxpayers increase by $46
billion over the same period.
In other words, the minister put $900 into the left pocket of
the average family and over the next three years will take $6,000
out of the right pocket and hope that the taxpayers will not
notice. The taxpayers are going to notice.
It is the intention and the duty of the official opposition over
the next few days to fully disclose and expose the betrayal of
the taxpayer in this budget and to present alternative measures
to make real tax relief and real debt reduction the priorities of
the 36th Parliament.
1800
We can hardly wait for that debate in which Canadians will hear
the other side of the story. But to give the government time to
fortify itself by strong drink and other measures against the
exposures of the weaknesses of its budget, to give the government
its fleeting moment in the sun, I move:
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
(Motion agreed to)
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), the motion
is deemed adopted and this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 2 p.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.)