CONTENTS
Wednesday, March 15, 1995
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 10507
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 10507
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 10509
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 10512
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 10512
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 10512
Bill C-316. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 10519
Mr. Peric
Mr. Milliken 10520
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 10522
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 10523
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 10523
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 10523
(Motion agreed to.) 10524
Bill C-74. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed adopted 10524
Consideration resumed of budget motion 10526
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 10531
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 10537
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 10540
(Motion agreed to.) 10542
Consideration resumed of budget motion 10542
Mr. Bernier (Gaspé) 10546
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 142; Nays, 81 10546
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 10548
(Motion agreed to.) 10548
Bill C-74. Motion for second reading 10548
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 165; Nays, 34 10558
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and theHouse went in committee thereon, Mr.
Kilgourin the chair.) 10559
Bill C-74. Consideration in Committee of the Whole 10559
(Amendment negatived.) 10568
(Clause agreed to.) 10568
(Clause agreed to.) 10568
(Clause agreed to.) 10568
(Clause agreed to.) 10568
(Clause agreed to.) 10568
(Clause agreed to.) 10568
(Clause agreed to.) 10568
(Clause agreed to.) 10568
(Clause agreed to.) 10568
(Clause agreed to.) 10568
(Clause agreed to.) 10568
(Clause agreed to.) 10568
(Clause agreed to.) 10568
(Clause agreed to.) 10568
(Clause agreed to.) 10568
(Clause 1 agreed to.) 10568
(Schedule agreed to.) 10568
Motion for concurrence 10568
(Motion agreed to.) 10568
Motion for third reading 10568
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 10570
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.) 10572
(Motion agreed to.) 10572
10507
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Wednesday, March 15, 1995
The House met at 2 p.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today is World Consumer Rights Day as declared by
Consumers International, formerly known as the International
Organization of Consumer Unions. Throughout the world,
consumers are marking this event by taking part in activities
stressing their contribution to the marketplace in our society.
Consumers have a vital role to play in maintaining the wealth
and competitiveness in this country. Indeed, over 60 per cent of
Canada's GDP is attributed to consumer demand. Consumers'
voices should be heard and their rights recognized.
Consumers International has a membership of 185
organizations from 80 nations whose fundamental concerns are
to protect the rights of consumers and to promote social justice
and fairness in the marketplace. The organization assists
consumer groups in developing countries and initiates research
action on issues such as pharmaceuticals, pesticides, tobacco
and baby foods. It facilitates comparative testing of consumer
goods and services-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by
failing to announce measures to stimulate the mining sector, the
latest budget brought down by the Minister of Finance is helping
to marginalize an industry that generates major spinoffs for a
number of regions in Quebec and Canada, for instance in my
own riding and in the ridings of many of my colleagues on both
sides of the House.
Through its failure to act and its lack of commitment, the
federal government is jeopardizing the operations of an industry
that is already experiencing problems. In fact, the Mining
Association of Canada refers to the budget measures as both
harsh and ineffectual and as a threat to the future of the mining
sector.
According to the Association des prospecteurs du Québec,
Quebec's mining industry may well consider whether its
particular sector would not be better served by a legislative
framework under which only the Government of Quebec would
have the power to intervene.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Albertans are demonstrating that they are willing to support the
arts without massive federal assistance. Yesterday the Toronto
based Council for Business and the Arts in Canada announced
the winners of the 17th annual Business in the Arts awards. I am
so pleased to announce that Big Rock Breweries from my riding
of Calgary Southeast has received the award for community
support.
The shrinking budgets in all areas of our economy demand we
seek new, innovative and creative ways of accessing funds,
including the cultural sector. Big Rock Breweries from Alberta
is leading the way as a private sector supporter for the arts. Last
year Big Rock provided over $100,000 to over 40 different arts
groups. It views its cultural support as a wise business practice
and not as a charitable donation.
Thanks to the support of Big Rock Breweries, groups like the
Alberta Theatre Project and the Muttard Public Art Gallery are
thriving. Albertans indeed are leading the way in private sector
support for the cultural sector. I applaud Big Rock Breweries.
* * *
Mr. Jag Bhaduria (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville,
Ind. Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend my congratulations
and appreciation to Mr. S.G.P. Jafry, a prominent member of the
South Asian community, and to the Scarborough Muslim
Association. Mr. Jafry was the fund raising co-ordinator
respon-
10508
sible for raising over $175,000 to offset the costs of surgery and
care of the Jamel twins.
These 2-year old children arrived from Pakistan last
November to have extremely delicate surgery. Since birth they
had been joined at the head. On January 23, 1995 a 23-member
team of surgeons at the Toronto Hospital for Sick Children
performed over 15 hours of surgery.
There have been only 30 such operations performed
worldwide and in 60 per cent of the operations only one of the
children survives. Young Hira Jamel survived but her sister Nida
did not. On behalf of the House, I wish to convey my
condolences to the Jamel family. I am sure everyone is hoping
for a full and complete recovery for young Hira Jamel.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in a
speech he made on June 3 at the annual meeting of the
Association canadienne-française de l'Ontario, the leader of the
Bloc Quebecois said, and I quote: ``The agenda proposed by the
Bloc Quebecois for today and for the future includes the active
solidarity of your communities with francophones in Quebec,
within the space we share''.
This statement was noteworthy for its understanding and
openness, unlike the statement made yesterday by the Bloc's
official critic in response to the position taken by the Fédération
des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada. After
accusing them of interfering, the Bloc member continued her
attack with the following statement, and I quote: ``Our message
to francophones outside Quebec is clear: Mind your own
business''.
Once again, the Bloc Quebecois has shown it is determined to
muzzle anyone who would challenge its separatist plans.
* * *
Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, francophone and Acadian communities are unwavering
in their belief in a united, progressive and dynamic Canada. I
was very happy to hear that the Fédération des communautés
francophones et acadienne du Canada had asked Quebecers to
vote ``no'' in the referendum on separation.
The members of the Bloc Quebecois are definitely misleading
francophone and Acadian communities when they tell them that
an independent Quebec would help the francophone community
in Canada to better grow and develop.
(1405)
Furthermore the statement by the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata suggesting that the federal
government had bought the francophones and the Acadians is a
further insult to our communities.
I would invite the hon. member to publicly apologize for her
insensitive remarks to Acadians and all francophones outside
Quebec. Canada's francophones and Acadians have every right
to speak on the future of our country.
* * *
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was very pleased to hear that the Fédération des
communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada
unequivocally declared that it is in favour of Canadian
federalism.
The FCFA is the second organization of its kind to state that it
supports the ``no'' side. Last February, the Société des
Acadiennes et Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick publicly
announced its position, and also begged Quebecers to vote no.
These two organizations also believe in a dynamic and
progressive Canada which is proud to promote both official
languages. This outlook on Canada promotes the growth of the
francophone culture as a whole.
The fact that francophone establishments and organizations
exist across Canada, be they educational, cultural or financial,
proves that the French fact in Quebec and in all of the provinces
has persevered and is alive.
The federal government has supported the development and
growth of the French language and culture in Canada at all
times, not just during the referendum debate. It would be a hard
blow to the francophone community elsewhere in Canada if
Quebec were to leave the Canadian federation.
Therefore, I hope the referendum will be held as soon as
possible so that we can get on with solving the real problems.
* * *
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
repeated attacks on the Immigration and Refugee Board over the
last several years have regularly made the headlines. Since the
Liberal government took office, these criticisms have become
increasingly vitriolic, but the government remains strangely
unperturbed.
Again yesterday, two former IRB board members estimated
that at least half of their former colleagues lacked the training
and expertise necessary for the performance of their duties.
10509
They alleged, as have others before them, that patronage
appointments are at the root of the board's problems.
It is urgent that the government get to the bottom of the matter
and hold a public inquiry into the Board's operations. The longer
this government fails to take action, the more lasting the damage
to the board's credibility is likely to be.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Mr. Gerry Parsons, a resident of Air Ronge,
Saskatchewan, has courageously given his permission for me to
use his letter. He writes:
I appreciate your stand on gun control. I approve of reasonable methods of
fighting crime and of taking guns from criminals. I will, I suppose, become a
criminal when I refuse to register my hunting guns. Actually, I will probably
never use my guns again; I am 75 years old and have a lung disorder which
prevents me from doing very much of anything. I have never been charged with
anything in my 75 years, it's too bad I have to start now. Thanks for your efforts.
It's too bad the justice minister is not as honest as yourself.
Does the justice minister really-
The Speaker: Colleagues, even though we are quoting other
people in this House sometimes terms which could not be
attributed to ourselves, that is to say, questioning the honesty of
another member, should not be imposed because someone else
said them. I would ask the hon. member to delete any reflection
on the honesty of any member of this House and to please finish
his statement.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker, I
withdraw that final sentence.
Does the justice minister really think Mr. Parsons is a
criminal? Does he think because a 75-year old man is going to
knowingly fail to register his hunting rifles that he should go to
jail for up to 10 years? Is the Liberal government going to build
more jails to house the thousands of responsible firearms
owners like Mr. Parsons? Or is it going to continue to let the real
criminals out on the street to make room for those who fail to
register their firearms?
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata, a great
champion of francophone rights when it suits her, tap-danced on
the backs of francophones outside Quebec yesterday.
She accused the Fédération des communautés francophones et
acadienne of interfering with Quebec's affairs by encouraging
Quebecers to vote ``no'' in the upcoming referendum.
Casting doubt on the FCFA's honesty, the hon. member asked
if receiving federal subsidies did not help the federation take a
federalist stance.
If francophones outside Quebec have survived for centuries,
taking their place at every level and in every sphere of activity in
Canada, and if there is such a thing as cultural duality in Canada
today, it is no thanks to egocentric separatists.
* * *
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
object to the remarks made by Bloc Quebecois members to the
effect that for francophones outside Quebec to oppose Quebec's
separation constitutes interference. Such remarks clearly show
the Bloc's policy of discouraging debate and silencing any
opposition to separation. But the Bloc is ignoring an inescapable
fact: you cannot silence a majority.
Francophones from across Canada-Quebecers, Acadians,
Franco-Saskatchewanians and Franco-Ontarians-have always
actively promoted and preserved their language and culture on
this continent where we form a very small minority.
Our efforts have paid off and will continue to pay off because
federalism and our political system are responsive and
encourage the development of francophone communities. A
majority of French Canadians recognize the Canadian federal
system as a flexible system that promotes our development.
At the opening of this Parliament, the Bloc Quebecois said it
was going to-
The Speaker: I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member.
I will now recognize the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.
* * *
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in recent months, francophone communities in Acadia and
Ontario have welcomed the leader of the Bloc Quebecois, who is
eager to spread his party's message and establish lasting links
with these communities.
I was there when the Association canadienne-française de
l'Ontario received Mr. Bouchard with decorum and civility at its
annual meeting last year in Toronto.
Yesterday, the federation of francophone and Acadian
communities of Canada said that Canadian federalism was the
most
10510
favourable framework for the development of Quebec society
and of francophone and Acadian communities.
Instead of admitting that this statement is based on
convictions as strong as hers, the hon. member for
Rimouski-Témiscouata responded by telling them to mind
their own business.
Francophone communities intend to pursue the dialogue
initiated by the Bloc Quebecois and, since the future of this
country concerns us all, we will mind our own business.
* * *
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, the sheep industry in Canada and Quebec was
stunned to find out in the last budget about the closure of the
experimental farm in La Pocatière, which was established in
1910. Against all expectations, the federal government is
slowing down the growth of this booming sector.
These cuts are totally inconsistent with the red book
commitments on research and development and defeat the
efforts made by research establishments in the last few years.
The federal government must review its R&D financing
policy and end blind cuts which unfairly penalize growing
agricultural sectors.
We hope that common sense will prevail and that the Minister
of Agriculture will reconsider his decision as soon as possible,
as requested by the committee for the survival of the
experimental farm in La Pocatière.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the justice minister participated in a closed door meeting
organized by the Liberal member for Dauphin-Swan River.
This meeting was declared a farce by Mike Dudar, a resident,
who had to demand a seat in a meeting that allowed only 60
people inside while hundreds of citizens along with the media
were locked out.
Why is the justice minister refusing to address the very
concerns his gun control legislation has created? Why was the
media locked out of the meeting in Dauphin, Manitoba last
night? Why is the minister unwilling to explain his gun control
legislation to the very people it will have the greatest negative
impact upon?
This is not the first time the minister has avoided an open
public meeting with the people of Canada. He repeated the same
practice while in Calgary last January. The minister's actions
last night were an insult to the people of Dauphin-Swan River
and an insult to all concerned Canadians.
(1415 )
The minister has a duty to stand before all Canadians and
defend his draconian gun legislation and demonstrate-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as
the member representing the federal riding of St. Boniface, as a
French-speaking resident of a province and a region outside
Quebec, and as a Canadian of French-speaking origin born in St.
Boniface, Manitoba, I am pleased that the Fédération des
communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada gave its
unequivocal support to Canadian federalism.
The federation, like myself, believes in a dynamic and
progressive Canada which is proud to promote its linguistic
duality and whose government actively supports the French fact
throughout the country. We hope that the referendum will be
held as soon as possible, so that all of us, including Quebecers of
course, can concentrate our energy on building our country,
Canada.
_____________________________________________
10510
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, Canada has just proceeded to release the Spanish
trawler
Estai, after its owners agreed to post a bond of $500,000.
As you know, the European Union had made the release of the
trawler a condition for resuming negotiations with Canada.
Could the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans indicate whether
in exchange for the release of the Spanish trawler, European
trawlers agreed to a 60-day moratorium on fishing for turbot, as
requested by Canada?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his
question.
I want to report to him that this morning the master, or the
owner, of the Estai posted bond in the order of $500,000 against
his vessel. This is in addition to the $8,000 bail posted against
the captain of the vessel a day or two before.
10511
This is in keeping with the procedures of the Canadian
judicial system, procedures that have been followed in similar
circumstances with other vessels of similar size, shape and
value.
We are very pleased to see that a bond has been posted. As a
result the vessel and crew are free to leave at any time.
In addition to the bond being posted, some 130 tonnes of
product have been removed from the vessel and is being held by
the crown as evidence. It will be held in a storage facility and
will be disposed of by the court at the end of the judicial
proceedings.
There has been no negotiation, nor should there be in terms of
the judicial proceedings themselves. I know the hon. Leader of
the Opposition would agree with this. The proceedings have
been conducted as they ought to be by the court in the normal
manner.
Now that both a bond has been posted and there is no fishing
on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks, this may well be an
opportunity for talks. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and the
Prime Minister have given instructions to a negotiating team in
Brussels. We shall see.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister whether in connection
with the release of the trawler Estai, Canada tried to obtain, or
possibly obtained, guarantees from the European Union or Spain
that their trawlers will not fish for turbot throughout the
forthcoming negotiations with Canada?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a good question. Canada has made it
clear since the beginning of this difficulty between Canada and
the EU that we will not negotiate while fish are being caught.
I was pleased to note yesterday we had four or five days in a
row of no fishing on the nose and tail of the Grand Banks. For a
few hours last night one vessel did cross over into the area of the
nose but I can report that this morning it had pulled back again.
For the moment, as we speak here in this Chamber, there are
no vessels on the nose and tail. Bond has been posted on this
particular fishing vessel. It will sail out of harbour. I should
point out it will sail out without a net, without the ability to fish.
The net was cut.
(1420 )
I can also report, and I know the Leader of the Opposition will
be happy to hear this, that Canadian technology in global
positioning systems-I am advertising now to the planet-were
successful in allowing us to find and to retrieve today the net
from the Estai.
The net that has been retrieved bears manufacturer markings
identical to that on part of the equipment still left on the Estai.
The fish that were pulled out of the water-we videotaped
this-were still kicking. They were alive. This is the net
recently cut. The net had a 115 millimetre mesh, which is
smaller than the 130 millimetre required by NAFO. In addition,
the net in question had an 80 millimetre liner in the net.
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
[Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether formal negotiations are now
taking place between Canadian diplomats and their European
counterparts, but I hope so. However, I would like to ask the
minister whether Canada has initiated certain discussions so
that formal negotiations can begin as soon as possible between
its representatives and those representing Spain and the
European Union?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the team
headed by the Canadian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs is
now in Brussels to start negotiations with representatives of the
European Union. We are ready and willing, and we want to settle
this in a diplomatic way.
There are two things we want to accomplish. First, ensure that
the conservation measures we support will be respected, and we
therefore hope to reach an agreement with our friends in the
European Union on setting up an effective mechanism for
surveillance and monitoring. I also want to take this opportunity
to say that in a spirit of co-operation, we are prepared to review
with European Union representatives the quota share we
obtained as a result of the last negotiations.
* * *
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Solicitor General. In a report made public
yesterday, the inspector general of the Canadian Security
Intelligence Service, better known as CSIS, notes serious
irregularities in the use of informants on university campuses
and in political parties during elections.
How does the Solicitor General explain his statements that
CSIS did not spy on or infiltrate political parties, when the
inspector general of CSIS criticizes his failure to issue any sort
of guideline on dealing with these political party informants
during electoral campaigns?
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the report is for a period of more than two years before
this government took office. Since that time work has been
10512
ongoing to deal with the problems and concerns raised in it.
This is something to which we are paying close attention.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
there is no need to go back two years. In December, Michel
Robert, the chair of the CSIS review committee, stated that
Canadian political parties had not been investigated, and, a
month later, the CSIS review committee was forced to
contradict him, saying that there had in fact been a file entitled
``Preston Manning'' on the Reform Party.
I would therefore ask the Solicitor General how he can play
down the scope of the report by the inspector general of CSIS,
which concludes that there is no justification for the use of
informants on university campuses and during electoral
campaigns.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is my understanding that the overall conclusion of
the inspector general at that time, some two years ago, was that
the use of informants by CSIS was professional, of an
appropriate professional level.
As I have said, work is ongoing to deal with the concerns
raised by the inspector general at that time.
Finally, I remind my hon. friend that he has once again stated
something that is not correct. The file referred to by the acting
chair of the security intelligence review committee was not
about an investigation of a political party but rather about the
possibility that a foreign government had made contributions in
a way that was not appropriate.
(1425)
Therefore, I hope my hon. friend, if he raises the subject
again, will describe the matter correctly. It is about time he did
so.
* * *
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
over a month ago the Minister of National Defence claimed to
have been ill-informed by the military chain of command
specifically concerning information regarding the airborne
videos.
Has the minister satisfied himself that these concerns with
information from the chain of command have been addressed?
What specifically has he done about them?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
was a particular incident to which the hon. member refers and
that concerns the misinformation in a report on the videos. That
matter was dealt with by the chief of defence staff who relieved a
general officer of his post as a result of not providing both the
CDS and myself with the details.
I have full confidence in the chief of defence staff and the
military command who work pretty hard at their jobs, as I have
confidence in all of the men and women who serve Canada
proudly in the armed forces.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
have obtained a leaked report written by Brigadier-General
Jeffries and submitted to land force command headquarters.
According to General Jeffries, the troops believe that, quote:
``Political agendas and careerism have replaced leadership in
the defence hierarchy and, furthermore, that the loyalty and
focus of senior military leaders is directed upwards and not
down''. This is a very serious evaluation of the state of affairs.
Is the Minister of National Defence aware of this report? How
does he plan to deal with the leadership crisis in his department?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am not
privy to all communications that are made between the chain of
command throughout the country.
If the hon. member has such a document that he describes, I
will certainly raise the matter with the chief of defence staff to
see if the concerns allegedly addressed by Brigadier-General
Jeffries have been brought to his attention. Then we will decide
how to proceed from that point forward.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
is not the first time that an internal report has pointed out
leadership problems in the Canadian military. To date, however,
the Minister of National Defence has promised only cosmetic
changes and has put off major decisions with the promise of
future inquiries.
Is the minister prepared to address these failings in the
leadership and elsewhere in the military or do we have to wait
for more videos?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
just made the statement that the government and I have full
confidence in the chief of defence staff and all those in
command of the Canadian Armed Forces.
With respect to the renewal of any organization, there are
changes made every year. I announced a couple of weeks ago we
would be streamlining the general officer ranks by about 25 per
cent. Some new people have been brought into key positions at
10513
national defence headquarters. I believe this will allay any
concerns the hon. member has that we at national defence
headquarters do not have dynamic, vibrant leadership.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The situation is very tense in Burundi since the murder, in
October 1993, of the first democratically elected president of
that republic. In recent months, some 50,000 people have died in
the conflict between the two main ethnic groups, and there is
every indication that another crisis is looming. The recent
assassination of the minister of energy and mines has
exacerbated the situation and there is a great deal of insecurity
in the country.
Can the minister tell us about the current situation in Burundi
and the means being considered by the UN and Canada to
prevent a crisis?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the concerns expressed by the hon.
member are well founded. It is sad that the ethnic conflicts
which occurred in Rwanda and ended in terrible bloodbaths
could now surface in a neighbouring country and trigger a
similar tragedy.
(1430)
This is why Canada has repeatedly asked the United Nations,
and also the Organization of African Unity, to immediately get
involved and try to find a solution to this increasingly menacing
situation.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday, in committee, the minister informed us of the
representations he made, among others, to the UN secretary, for
sending additional troops to Rwanda in order to restore a
balance in the region. As you know, the Security Council
rejected Canada's request.
My question to the minister is: Will he pledge to again ask the
UN Security Council to quickly organize the multinational
forces required to prevent a conflict?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. In the event that the United
Nations are not in a position to intervene, we also contacted the
Organization of African Unity to see if a regional approach
might be more appropriate. A number of countries concerned by
the situation in Rwanda and in Burundi could intervene, with the
support of the UN, but they would do so on a regional basis,
rather than in the context of a global operation under the UN.
[English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would have thought that with the contents of the
report being so serious the minister might have had them before
now.
Further to my colleague's questions regarding leadership,
General Jeffries' report says the troops believe: ``Senior leaders
are seen to be unwilling or unable to speak to soldiers' needs on
their soldiers' behalf. For example, the airborne trial by
headlines left personnel feeling disillusioned and abandoned''.
Has the minister yet realized how serious the leadership
problem in his department is? If so, can he give the House some
specifics as to how he intends to deal with it?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have
to realize the armed forces has been under considerable pressure
for the last few years since the events in Somalia became public.
This has posed a great problem and a strain.
The armed forces has enjoyed an enviable reputation for many
years. The work discharged by the armed forces is exemplary.
The Canadian Armed Forces is universally respected.
This week we are preparing to send the first of about a 470
contingent to Haiti. These people are outstanding. They are well
led. That does not mean to say that from time to time problems
will crop up. Where specific examples of management or
leadership are brought to the attention of the government, they
are dealt with.
With respect to the issue of Somalia, the whole chain of
command and how the troops were deployed to Somalia will be
the subject of an inquiry.
For the Reform Party to make blanket accusations about the
morale of the troops and about the high leadership of the armed
forces is not borne out by the facts. There was considerable
disappointment regarding airborne matters and may have been
reflected in the alleged report.
The Speaker: I would ask members once again to keep
questions and answers short.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is not the Reform Party that is accusing the minister
of leadership problems.
The report also says: ``Soldiers perceive their interests and
welfare are being sacrificed so that senior leaders can be
successful in delivering the same bang for much less buck.
Unpalatable though it may be, we will have to cut our suit to fit
the available cloth if we are to avoid a hollow army and burnt out
soldiers''.
10514
Considering the contents of this report, is the minister
prepared to institute an immediate inquiry to determine the
cause and extent of the problem and propose remedial action to
avoid a burnt out army?
(1435)
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence
and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it
odd that the hon. member wishes me to institute an inquiry based
on one memo.
The hon. member was a member of the joint committee of the
House and Senate that looked into all aspects and operations of
the Canadian Armed Forces. He signed a report concluding that
the leadership of the armed forces was top flight.
Now he comes forward based on the contents of one memo,
perhaps generated by the very emotional situation of the closing
of the Canadian airborne, and wishes to reverse the assessment
to which he subscribed less than three months ago. That is not
logical.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of the Environment. In December
1993, officials of the Department of the Environment gave their
minister an internal document which seriously called into
question the conclusions and quality of the study on which she
based her decision to refloat the
Irving Whale.
Was the Minister of the Environment aware of that document
and will she tell us why she picked the most risky and
controversial solution, which was to raise the Irving Whale,
despite her officials' advice?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the only one who
thinks this is a controversial issue is the company that did not
land the contract. What is truly unfortunate for the hon. member
opposite is that people called her leader regarding this issue
when he was environment minister, and he held public hearings
into the matter in Halifax, Dartmouth and on Prince Edward
Island, yet took no action.
As soon as we came to office, we acted and we hope to raise
the Irving Whale this summer at the very latest.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
speaking to the Minister of the Environment who, at present, is
the only one responsible for the Department of the Environment,
and who is the one who must make the right decisions.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Guay: How can the minister explain her steadfast
refusal to have an electronic inspection of the barge's hull done
before raising it, which the experts say is the very minimum
which must be done to prevent a major ecological catastrophe
from occurring if the Irving Whale were to break up during the
operation?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member
had read the documents I provided, all of the material in the
public domain, including the 1990 report asking the former
minister to take action, she would know that we did have an
electronic inspection done last June.
[English]
What I find incredibly obscure about the logic of the hon.
member is that a few months ago she stood in the House and said
we should not wait until next spring. We have to lift the Irving
Whale this year. Now that we are moving ahead and have gone to
tender, she completely reverses the position she took only a few
months ago.
I took a position, unlike her leader. I am going to raise the
Irving Whale and finally we will get rid of the ticking time bomb
that has been there for 25 years.
* * *
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have
been informed the government has finally agreed to Reform's
demands for back to work legislation in the current west coast
labour dispute.
This addresses the immediate problem for Canadian shipping.
What is the Minister of Labour prepared to do to prevent further
disruptions?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in fact the situation has worsened in British Columbia
ports. As of midnight last night, there was a complete work
stoppage, as hon. members are aware. Yes, since midnight
yesterday, the transportation of grain and perishable goods has
been halted. In the face of the enormous economic consequences
of this problem, the government has decided to act and
implement back to work legislation.
We are currently negotiating with the various parties to ensure
this legislation is adopted as quickly as possible. I hope that we
will obtain everyone's agreement.
(1440)
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the minister on her move.
What is needed now is final offer binding arbitration, as put
forward in our private member's Bill C-262. Will the minister
make a commitment today to support Bill C-262? If not, will she
present similar legislation of her own?
10515
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can understand my hon. colleague's concerns about
strikes in British Columbia ports. Today, however, we have a
major crisis with grave economic consequences. The
government will act as soon as it has the co-operation of the
various parties in this House.
* * *
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Yesterday, the UN Committee Against Torture ruled that
Canada's treatment of Mr. Khan, a refugee claimant from
Pakistan, violated the international convention against torture,
to which Canada itself is a signatory.
Since the decision concludes that this individual would be in
danger of being subjected to torture if Canada sent him back to
his native country, does the Canadian government undertake not
to deport Mr. Khan?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon.
member for the question. I am aware of the UN committee's
decision.
We have asked the UN committee to reconsider its position on
the basis that this individual also had a criminal conviction in
Canada in 1993. No longer is this simply a case of protection for
an individual. There is also the claim that Canada has every right
to uphold the protection of the community and society.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, how
does the minister explain the fact that the Immigration and
Refugee Board apparently did not look into the grounds for Mr.
Khan's request, as the UN committee's ruling indicates?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the UN said Canada's system
and how it deals with and treats refugee claimants is among the
best in the world. With all due respect to the UN, Canada's house
is quite clean and quite orderly.
However, it is our right as a country that this decision be not
binding on Canada. We have every right to uphold our laws and
the protection of our citizens. That is exactly the point we are
making to this committee in asking it, even though its decision
is not binding, to reconsider the sovereign right of a country to
protect its borders and citizens.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Labour. I appreciated her
response on the grain transportation problem.
I stood in the House on February 7 last year with regard to a
similar problem. The government passed legislation to put the
workers back to work. Now we are dealing with a similar
problem again.
What long term measures is the minister willing to employ to
ensure that year after year western Canadian grain farmers do
not have to go through similar problems?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I can understand the concerns of the hon. member for
Provencher because work stoppages are indeed, might I say,
excessively frequent in British Columbia's harbours. I intend to
have an industrial inquiry commission look into the various
existing collective bargaining procedures with a view to making
a very specific recommendation so that we can have-
[English]
Mr. Thompson: A review! Oh no, not again!
[Translation]
Mrs. Robillard: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I am unable to
respond, with all the racket the hon. members opposite are
making.
[English]
The Speaker: Once again I appeal to members to listen to the
questions and answers. It is a matter of common courtesy.
* * *
(1445 )
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is
confusion surrounding the Liberal position on the electronic
transfer tax, otherwise known as the Tobin tax, which seeks to
impede the flow of capital around the world.
Last week in Copenhagen the human resources minister said
that it was a good idea. He repeated it again in the House on
Monday. The finance minister denounced it and now it has been
undenounced-
Mr. Young: Undenounced?
Mr. Abbott: Yes, undenounced by the foreign affairs
minister.
What is the position? Does the government support the Tobin
tax? Yes or no.
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is important for the hon. member to remember
10516
that we are making a major breakthrough by bringing to the
agenda of the G-7 meeting the question of the revision of the
international financial institutions.
During the course of discussions a number of alternatives will
be discussed. The Tobin tax, which seems to be very interesting
to the hon. member, is one of many subjects that will certainly
be looked at and discussed at that meeting.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in the
world today international money traders are looking at Canada.
They want some kind of feeling of security on where the
government is going.
Why do 1970 ideas keep bubbling to the top whenever the
Liberals get into their think mode? Do they support the Tobin
tax? Yes or no.
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are supporting a revision and an improvement
of international financial institutions. We will be presenting
recommendations in this regard at the time of the Halifax
summit.
We have asked a parliamentary committee to look at it. I
remind the hon. member that his party is represented on the
committee. We hope the representatives of the Reform Party on
the committee will make valuable recommendations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal. At a
press conference in Quebec City yesterday, the vice-president
of the Public Service Alliance of Canada revealed actual
instances of public funds being squandered. Apparently, the
federal government offered courses on stress management
through humour, and defensive driving courses to civil servants
who do not need to drive as part of their jobs. Talk about
defensive!
Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs admit that
these glaring examples of squandering show that the
government is unable to end the cycle of waste in the federal
administration?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we do not subscribe to government waste. In terms of
program review we have gone through in great detail all the
programs and services provided by the government.
In order to get our deficit down, in order to get our fiscal
house in order, we have made the most major cuts that have been
made in government expenditures since the end of the second
world war. That will help to bring about a discipline and ensure
more than ever before that we have the greatest efficiency and
effectiveness in terms of the spending of public taxpayers
dollars.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in light of the
minister's answer, I believe he should have his eyes examined.
(1450)
Why does the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs turn a
blind eye to the many instances of squandering brought to his
attention by civil servants? Why does he not recognize that he
should clean up his own backyard before hitting civil servants
with massive layoffs?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we do not close an eye to any matter brought to our
attention whereby we can improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of government programs and services. Any that
have been brought to my attention have been or are being
examined very carefully.
We do not take lightly the fact that part of our expenditure
reduction program involves 45,000 people having to be removed
from their positions in the public service. We intend to treat
people fairly and equitably in carrying this out and ensuring that
we get the fiscal house of the government in order.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday Mr. Bill Bauer and Mr. Gary Carson, both former
members of the Immigration and Refugee Board, confirmed that
half the IRB members may not be competent to hear refugee
claims, that some cannot function adequately in either of
Canada's official languages, and that members are being
pressured to make positive decisions.
Will the minister listen this time, dismantle the IRB and start
over, or will he ignore Bauer like he ignored us and other
Canadians and even his own employees?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the matter should be put in its
proper context.
The government has not accepted the status quo with respect
to the Immigration and Refugee Board. We have moved serious
reforms both legislatively as well as administratively. Last week
the chairman of the IRB responded very comprehensively and
very effectively to the Hathaway report.
No one is saying that institution or any institution of
government is perfect. Equally so, we should not jump to the
opposite extreme and say that everything the IRB does is wrong
and every
10517
member of the IRB is incompetent, because that is simply not
the case.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Bauer made it clear yesterday that the minister's single
member panels are a step backward and will worsen the current
mess.
Two former IRB members concluded that Canada accepts
terrorists as refugees, that some lawyers are scripting refugee
claims, and that in Bauer's opinion up to two-thirds of claimants
are accepted under false pretences.
Why does the minister continue to put the interests of bogus
claimants, refugee lawyers and advocates ahead of the interests
of Canadians who pay $1 billion a year for this disgrace?
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member does not know
what he is talking about. If competence for membership in the
Chamber was any guideline he would not be here.
Now he is talking about a $1 billion budget for the IRB. I ask
the member to have the decency to put forward the facts, to put
forward things that we can do better, things that we can do to
build the institution, rather than reduce everything to rubble.
* * *
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The minister just revealed that DFO was successful in
retrieving the net of the Spanish trawler, the Estai.
Congratulations to the minister and his department are in order.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Wells: Would the minister inform the House of the
significance of the net's mesh size and the accompanying liner
in the matter at hand?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. The
matter is important to Atlantic Canadians and obviously
important to people right across the country, given the support
the Reform Party has given to the government in pursuit of the
conservation of the fishery.
(1455)
It is extraordinary to see the Reform Party, the New
Democratic Party-and I should acknowledge the Conservative
Party-and the Leader of the Official Opposition endorse
unanimously the conservation measure in the House on behalf of
Canadians everywhere. It is a great moment for Canada. I
acknowledge the support of the parties opposite.
However, let me in answering the question acknowledge the
tremendous leadership of the greatest Prime Minister the
country has ever had in standing up for the country.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Tobin: Mr. Speaker, you want me to come right to the
point and I shall.
The Speaker: Yes, I would like the minister to come precisely
to the point.
Mr. Tobin: The significance of the 80-millimetre mesh is
that it is some 15 millimetres smaller than the official NAFO
approved mesh size for this species. Therefore the animals being
caught in the mesh are far smaller. They are juveniles. They are
immature. They are far smaller than what should be caught if we
are to have a sustainable fishery.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. After waiting
for several months, the federal government has started
distributing a working paper on future anti-scab legislation. The
proposals in the working paper are unacceptable to workers, in
several respects.
Will the minister agree not to interfere in union matters by
requiring, for instance, that 60 per cent of union members must
be in favour for anti-scab provisions to apply during a labour
dispute?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as you know, we are reviewing Part I of the Canada
Labour Code, and the issue of replacement workers is on the
table. We are now engaged in consultations with the various
parties, both management and labour. I am prepared to listen to
what the various parties have to say. Still, I do hope the member
for the Bloc Quebecois is not against this kind of legislation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow two of Canada's trade negotiators will be in
Washington to discuss the recent restrictions placed on
Canadian sugar exports. The government has taken the position
that GATT takes precedence over NAFTA. That is because we
have imposed new tariffs as high as 350 per cent on butter and
other supply managed products.
Does this not put us in a very difficult position when arguing
against new U.S. tariffs on sugar?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for International Trade let me
10518
say that we are conducting these discussions with a very high
regard for Canadian interests which will be defended in all
aspects of the continuing discussions.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. It concerns
the budgetary betrayal of federal funding promises to B.C. and
other provinces with a community action program for children
or CAPC, a program for vulnerable and at risk children.
In view of the profound concerns of the B.C. Coalition for
Children and the B.C. government arising from drastic cuts in
funding for 1996 and beyond, how can the minister justify the
decision to cut the deficit on the backs of poor and vulnerable
children?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we are very concerned that children be treated equally
and fairly.
The budget did not dramatically cut CAPC. It reduced the
actual growth of the program. That program will be distributed
equally across the country.
(1500 )
We also have other programs aimed at helping poor children
in this country. One of them is the aboriginal head start program.
We have the prenatal nutrition program and the brighter futures
program. All of these programs come into play as well.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Health.
[English]
Fifteen thousand Canadians suffer from multiple sclerosis. In
the U.S., the drug Betaseron has been used to treat MS for over a
year. Betaseron is currently being reviewed by the health
protection branch and can only be obtained under the emergency
drug release program at a cost of over $17,000.
Can the minister provide information on when Betaseron will
be made available to Canadian MS victims at a price they can
afford?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am well aware of the needs of victims of multiple
sclerosis.
Unfortunately, the manufacturers of Betaseron chose not to
apply to have the drug approved here in Canada at the same time
as they did in the U.S. When they did apply we fast tracked the
approval of this drug. The price of this drug is quite high. It is
under review at this time by the Patented Medicine Prices
Review Board.
The Speaker: My colleagues, this brings to a conclusion our
question period. I have a question of privilege from the hon.
Leader of the Opposition.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of the Environment stated
in this House, when she answered a question on the refloating of
the
Irving Whale, and I quote: ``I just wanted to remind the hon.
members that the first report proposing salvage measures was
tabled in 1989 and rejected by the then Minister of the
Environment''.
Later on, she also said about the Irving Whale: ``six years
after the first report was presented to the former environment
minister-the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean''.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that I resigned as environment
minister in May 1990 and that the report mentioned by the
minister was tabled in September 1990. Her statement is
therefore totally false and inaccurate.
Mr. Young: But in any case, you did nothing.
Mr. Bouchard: I hear other ministers say that she was right to
lie to the House.
Mr. Young: You did nothing when you were there.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I do not think I heard
everything the hon. Leader of the Opposition said, but if the
word ``lie'' was indeed used, I would urge the hon. Leader of the
Opposition to reconsider the use of that word.
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I have reconsidered, and I gladly
withdraw.
I would ask that, in that same spirit, the transport minister
withdraw his remarks that the environment minister was right
yesterday to twist the truth around.
Mr. Young: You did nothing.
Mr. Bouchard: It is not over yet.
Mr. Young: That is for sure.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has
the floor.
Mr. Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, what happened yesterday is
even more serious. It is so because I submit to the Chair that this
inaccuracy was stated on purpose. The minister had the report in
front of her at the time, and it indicates the date I just gave.
10519
Moreover, the question was asked by one of her Liberal
colleagues, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, who, as a
courteous man, certainly served notice of his question to the
minister. She knew what to expect and she was able to prepare an
answer.
(1505)
A third point is even more serious than this. The minister
altered the official report so that today, Hansard does not
contain the words she used yesterday. According to Beauchesne,
and more particularly citation 1117, no member is allowed to
alter Hansard the way the minister did yesterday after the blues
came out.
If you compare the blues and Hansard, you will notice that
two substantive corrections were made, so that the words which
were so injurious to me yesterday as a member of this House in
front of the TV cameras and everybody, while the minister
scored political points by heaping ridicule on me and making me
look like an irresponsible minister, no longer appear in Hansard
today. Therefore, those injurious remarks made publicly
yesterday in this House, in front of the TV cameras, must be
corrected today in a immediate public statement including
apologies by the minister.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
[English]
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, given the gravity of
the accusations of the hon. member, I would have thought he
would at least have had the courtesy of serving me notice. Had
he served me notice, I would have advised him as I did
yesterday, as I did several months ago when I actually gave a
copy of that particular report to the House. Unfortunately, his
caucus I suppose did not advise him of it.
In fact, the Brander-Smith report to which I referred
yesterday in the House was initiated by the Right Hon. Brian
Mulroney when the hon. Leader of the Opposition was Minister
of the Environment. There were several public hearings held
while he was Minister of the Environment, including a public
hearing that was held in Halifax, another public hearing that was
held in Saint John and another public hearing held in Prince
Edward Island, which specifically called on the Minister of the
Environment in 1989 to act.
In fact, the minister did not act. He did not act; his
predecessors did not act; his successors did not act. We acted
within 100 days of coming to government.
I would have thought that rather than dragging out the issue-
[Translation]
-rather that resorting to petty politics, the Bloc Quebecois
would have done better to recognize the fact that we have made a
decision, a decision that neither the former environment
minister, his predecessor, nor his successor made.
I will repeat in French so that he understands clearly. When he
was environment minister, in 1989, three public hearings were
held at which the refloating of the Irving Whale was advocated,
and he did not respond. That is what I said in the House
yesterday.
[English]
I will put my word on the line against his word any time.
The Speaker: My colleagues, the Chair always takes very,
very seriously any question of privilege which is raised by any
and all hon. members in this House.
We have heard allegations on one side and a rebuttal on the
other. We are getting into debate, perhaps on a question of the
interpretation of facts. With your permission, seeing that this
has taken place over two days, I wonder if you will give me the
time to review the blues as to what was said.
(1510 )
I will come back to the House as soon as I can to give a
decision as to whether indeed any hon. member's privileges
have been breached in this case. With the time to think about it a
bit, I will bring back a decision as soon as possible. For this
question of privilege at least at this time, I would like to take the
information I have and consider it for a while.
_____________________________________________
10519
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to a
number of petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-316, an act to amend the Immigration Act and
the Transfer of Offenders Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce my third
private members' bill entitled the Immigration Enforcement
Improvement Act.
My bill aims to improve the way in which the deportation of
violent offenders is carried out. The proposed changes will
enable a court in addition to any other sentence to order the
10520
removal of a non-citizen convicted of a serious criminal
offence.
The bill does not apply to anyone who arrived in Canada
before reaching 16 years of age, as long as that individual has
been free of criminal convictions for a period of five years. The
bill also provides for the removal of foreign offenders to host
countries willing to accept them by court order.
I am pleased to announce that my bill has received the
endorsement of the Canadian Police Association, Victims of
Violence and CAVEAT. I would encourage all members of this
House to support this important public safety initiative.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1515 )
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House for the
following motion.
I move:
That notwithstanding the usual practices and rules of the House, the
government may immediately introduce and propose first reading of a bill
entitled, ``An act respecting the supervision of longshoring and related
operations at west coast ports'', and the said bill shall be disposed of as follows:
(1) Immediately after the completion of all items of business relating to ways
and means this day, the House shall take up consideration of the second reading
stage of the said bill.
(2) After being read a second time the bill shall be referred to a committee of
the whole.
(3) Immediately after being reported from committee and concurred in at the
report stage, the said bill shall be taken up at the third reading stage.
(4) The House shall not adjourn this day until the third reading stage of the
said bill has been disposed of, but the House shall adjourn immediately after
completing the third reading stage of the bill.
The Speaker: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have the
unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: Unanimous consent has not been granted.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have the
pleasure to present petitions on behalf of constituents in the
central Algoma area of my riding, from towns like Richards
Landing, Bruce Mines, north of Sault Ste. Marie, Goulais River
and Echo Bay. These constituents have expressed concerns
about government plans to include sexual orientation in
Canada's human rights legislation.
It is my pleasure to present these on their behalf.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to present a petition from 190 of my constituents. Their
concern is the addition of the phrase sexual orientation either in
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the Canadian Human
Rights Act.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to present two petitions from my constituents.
The first petition requests that Parliament amend the Divorce
Act, including the provision similar to article 611 of the Quebec
civil code, which states:
In no case may a father or mother, without serious cause, place obstacles
between the child and grandparents. Failing agreement between the parties, the
modalities of the relations are settled by the court.
Further, they request an amendment to the Divorce Act that
would give a grandparent who is granted access to a child the
right to make inquiries and to be given information as to the
health, education and welfare of the child.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
other petition asks that Parliament reduce government spending
instead of increasing taxes.
I support the petitioners.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to table petitions signed by senior citizens in my riding.
Because these people are less experienced with new technology,
they ask the government to abandon its plan to install voice
mail.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is an
honour to present the first of many petitions organized by Nick
Carter and others with the JC-55 Super Country Radio station in
Kamloops.
10521
The petition is signed by 14,000 people living mainly in the
central interior of British Columbia. It calls for immediate
changes to our justice system, including changes to the parole
system to ensure that dangerous criminals not be allowed to
return to our communities prematurely.
The bottom line is that they are seeking safety and security on
our streets and in our neighbourhoods.
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
two petitions to present today on behalf of people from Ste.
Anne, Steinbach, St. Jean Baptiste, Altona and Plum Coulee in
my riding.
It states that whereas the majority of Canadians believe that
the privileges which society accords to heterosexual couples
should not be extended to same sex relationships, therefore,
your petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the
human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to
indicate societal approval of same sex relationships.
(1520 )
Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
second petition to present on behalf of other constituents in my
riding.
It states that the concerned citizens of the province of
Manitoba draw to the attention of the House that the proposed
amendments to the firearms control legislation by the justice
minister are unduly harsh and waste dwindling financial
resources while attacking the rights of law-abiding citizens
without affecting crime.
Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament separate the
provisions into two separate issues that Parliament may proceed
to strengthen border controls and the criminal use of firearms,
but not proceed with the proposed enhanced controls on legal
ownership of firearms.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present today. The first is
from constituents in the beautiful city of Hedley, British
Columbia. They realize that Canadians are already
overburdened with taxation due to high government spending.
Therefore, the petitioners pray and request that Parliament
reduce the federal deficit by reducing government spending and
refrain from any form of increased taxation.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners pray for two
things: first, that Parliament ensure that the present provisions
of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be
enforced vigorously; and second, that Parliament make no
changes in the law that would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting or suicide or euthanasia.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the third petition concerns section 745 of the
Criminal Code of Canada. Under this section the sentence of
murderers convicted to life imprisonment without chance of
parole for 25 years are able to apply for a review after 15 years.
The petitioners request that Parliament repeal section 745 of
the Criminal Code of Canada.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, the fourth petition is regarding the current gun
legislation before the House.
To date I have presented 3,010 signatures. These petitioners
from Osoyoos, Oliver, Princeton and other areas in the
Okanagan Valley oppose further legislation for firearms
acquisition and possession and ask Parliament to provide strict
guidelines and mandatory sentences for the use and possession
of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.
I concur with my petitioners.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition
containing over 100 signatures mainly from the city of Quesnel
in my constituency of Cariboo-Chilcotin.
These petitioners request that Parliament ensure that the
present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting
assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament
make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the
aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
The petition is presented with my concurrence.
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have one more petition. I would like to present a
petition signed by 134 constituents, again from the city of
Quesnel and other areas of British Columbia.
These petitioners request that Parliament not amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include
in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
This petition is also presented with my concurrence.
10522
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour of presenting two petitions today.
The first is signed by petitioners from my constituency of
Burnaby-Kingsway as well as other communities in British
Columbia.
It calls on Parliament to support an all-party parliamentary
resolution to acknowledge the injustice and racial
discrimination inherent in the Chinese head tax-it was
imposed from 1885 to 1923-and also in the Chinese
immigration exclusion act which prohibited Chinese
immigration from 1923 to 1947.
It calls on Parliament to recognize and compensate for the
suffering of individual Chinese Canadians and the entire
Chinese Canadian community that resulted from this legislated
discrimination.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is signed by hundreds of residents
of Kamloops, the Fraser Valley, Burnaby-Kingsway, other
communities throughout British Columbia and beyond.
It calls on Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to ensure
the right of all Canadians to die with dignity, by allowing people
with terminal or irreversible and debilitating illness the right to
the assistance of a physician in ending their lives at a time of
their choice, subject to strict safeguards to prevent abuse and to
ensure the decision is free, informed, competent and voluntary.
(1525 )
Mr. Tony Ianno (Trinity-Spadina, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to present a petition on behalf of some of my
constituents of Trinity-Spadina.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada to amend
the Canadian Human Rights Act so as to protect individuals
from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
On behalf of my constituents, I humbly submit these
petitions.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have four petitions today from constituents in my riding of
Bruce-Grey.
Two of the petitions request that Parliament not amend the
human rights code and the Canadian Human Rights Act or
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would indicate
societal approval for same sex relationships or homosexuality,
including amending the human rights code to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the defined phrase sexual
orientation.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
next petition requests that Parliament ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
change in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide, or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Ovid L. Jackson (Bruce-Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
fourth petition asks Parliament to extend protection to the
unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same
protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human
beings.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
just before the budget was brought down I presented petitions
against tax increases from all over Canada signed by 20,431
people. Ever since the budget came down, more of these
petitions have been pouring in.
Today 16,967 more petitioners, for a grand total of 38,297
people from all over Canada, 11,711 of them from my own
constituency, together pray-and unlike some prayers this
prayer may be in vain-that Parliament reduce spending instead
of increasing taxes and implement a taxpayer protection act to
limit federal spending as well.
I could not concur more strongly with all 39,000 petitioners.
The Speaker: I am told that eventually all prayers are
answered.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise again to present another petition in this course of action
undertaken by constituents who wish to halt the early release
from prison of Robert Paul Thompson.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current
practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the
full extent of their sentences.
The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for
law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of
convicted murderers.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have been asked today to present two petitions to the
House. The first petition is with regard to human rights
violations in Sri Lanka.
10523
The petitioners urge the Government of Canada to intervene
immediately in the decade old national ethnic conflict in Sri
Lanka with the view to: first, bring about an unconditional
ceasefire, preferably verified by the United Nations; second, to
bring the parties in the conflict to the negotiating table,
preferably with United Nations mediation so that matters under
dispute could be resolved satisfactorily and lasting peace
achieved; and, third, to suspend forthwith all foreign aid and, if
necessary, impose sanctions until cessation of hostilities and
human rights violations.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the second petition is with regard to the Young
Offenders Act.
It calls on Parliament to amend the act: first, to lower the age
limits which define a young offender to include only those
children between the ages of 10 and 15; second, to increase the
maximum penalty for first and second degree murder from 5 to
10 years, which has already been done by the government; and,
third, to allow the publication of a young offender's name after a
second serious offence, and any other changes necessary to
ensure that the public interest as well as the needs of Canadian
youth are addressed in a fair and balanced fashion.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is my
pleasure to present three petitions today.
The first group of petitioners request that the Government of
Canada not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to include
the phrase sexual orientation. The petitioners are troubled about
not defining the phrase sexual orientation. They have a
legitimate concern that such a broad term could include all kinds
of sexual behaviour.
(1530 )
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
second petition deals with the subject of Bill C-68, gun control.
The petitioners state that the target for all gun control laws in the
Criminal Code of Canada must be the criminals who are a danger
to the public safety and not law-abiding, responsible firearm
owners.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): The third petition is
very appropriate. It deals with budget '95.
It is quite timely. It was collected by small businessmen from
my riding including Mr. Brent Stief, Mrs. Neillie Murray, Mr.
Phil Walker, Mr. Arch Brown and Mr. Bill Schwartz.
The petitioners request that with Canadians already
overburdened with taxation due to high government spending
Parliament reduce government spending instead of increasing
taxes and I wholeheartedly agree with all three petitions.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and present three petitions today
signed by people from West Guilford, Haliburton, Eagle Lake,
Minden, Wilberforce and Tory Hill in the riding of
Victoria-Haliburton.
They draw the attention of the House of Commons to gun
control and ask Parliament not to pass any law that would
prohibit the legitimate use of firearms.
A further petition concerns gun control and supports the
present legislation before the House.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the honour, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to
present petitions on behalf of my constituents and the immediate
neighbourhood of Winnipeg North.
The petitioners are concerned about physician assisted
suicide and euthanasia, concerns that I share. They are
concerned about the negative impact of such a move on families
as well as loss of respect for human life and far reaching
negative implications in society.
They therefore pray that Parliament continue to reject
euthanasia and physician assisted suicide; that it continue to
enforce section 241 of the Criminal Code prohibiting the
commission of assisting suicide; and that it consider expanding
palliative care accessible to all dying persons knowing that such
care is compassionate and therefore will result in the relief of
pain and suffering without the danger concomitant with assisted
suicide.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to join my colleague from Fraser Valley East in
presenting a petition from nearly 1,000 people in my riding of
Calgary North requesting that Parliament reduce government
spending instead of increasing taxes and also that Parliament
implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending.
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I have a brief point of order with respect to the
presentation of petitions. I have noticed that a practice seems to
have grown in the House of members' indicating their
concurrence with particular petitions.
This is a matter of debate. I wonder whether the Speaker
might provide some guidance to the House on this matter
because the practice has been growing.
The Speaker: The hon. member raises a very valid point. As a
general statement the Chair would not encourage whether a
member concurs with the presentation of a specific petition
brought to the floor.
10524
I would encourage all hon. members to desist from saying
whether they are for or against certain petitions.
I have been letting this go for some time. Hon. members will
understand that sometimes hon. members are put into positions
in which they do not really want to say whether they are for or
against a petition but it is their duty to present petitions to the
House.
The point of the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway is well
taken and I would encourage all hon. members to desist saying
whether there is concurrence or not.
* * *
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the work stoppage in west coast ports has
dangerous implications for the economy of western Canada and
therefore legislation is urgently required to reopen the ports.
Therefore I move, pursuant to Standing Order 53:
That the 48 hours notice be waived in order to permit the Minister of Labour
immediately to introduce a bill entitled an act respecting the supervision of
longshoring and related operations at west coast ports and,
That the House not adjourn this day except pursuant to a motion by a minister
of the crown.
(1535 )
The Speaker: Will those members who object to the motion
please rise in their places.
Fewer than 10 members have risen to object, pursuant to
Standing Order 53(4) the motion is adopted.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-74, an act respecting the
supervision of longshoring and related operations at west coast
ports.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read the second time?
Some hon. members: Later this day.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I was looking at Standing Order 53, the provision
under which the motion was presented to the House. I believe
the motion presented is actually in contradiction of the intention
of Standing Order 53.
Standing Order 53(3) says:
Proceedings on any such motion shall be subject to the following conditions:
(a) The Speaker may permit debate thereon for a period not exceeding one
hour;
The intention of Standing Order 53, when it was passed by the
House was not to allow debate to exceed one hour. The minister
and government have proposed we ignore the intent of this
regulation and continue debate until such time as a minister of
the crown deems the day is over.
I believe this is specifically against the intention of the
Standing Order. I would like the Chair to review this before we
proceed any further along these lines.
(1540)
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, as I understand the provisions of Standing Order 53,
this is a matter of a very urgent nature in which the normal rules
of the House are suspended.
In this instance clearly we are talking about overriding
collective bargaining rights and moving directly to a bill. As I
understand it, before the question is put on the motion, members
of the House should at least be given an opportunity to be heard
on whether this matter is of sufficient urgency to should proceed
under the extraordinary provisions of Standing Order 53.
This is a very serious matter. I spoke with the president of the
Longshoremen's Union Local 514, Doug Sigurdson. He
indicated they are currently in conciliation on this matter. The
government wants to short circuit the collective bargaining
process and move directly.
If that is to happen, the Chair should allow members of this
House the courtesy of being heard under the provisions of
Standing Order 53. That was not done and I would appeal to the
Speaker to reconsider his position and to give us an opportunity
to be heard.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with the greatest respect, what has happened is
perfectly proper.
On the motion the government introduced, there seem to be
two points raised by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway
and the hon. member for Battlefords-Meadowlake. The points
are separate and so I will try to deal with them separately.
The first one is that somehow the motion proposed extends the
debate on this motion which has been disposed of by the House
for more than an hour. That is not correct. The debate is over. No
one who rose to debate the motion when the motion was put to
the House.
10525
The Chair put the motion to the House and everyone was
sitting in their seats. I looked around to see if anyone was rising
in debate and not a soul rose.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway was glued to his
seat. He did not want to debate this matter. Then he suddenly
realized he made a mistake by not getting up.
The debate is over. The question has been put. There could
have been a one-hour debate. The hon. member knows this. No
member rose to speak. Therefore the question was put and
disposed of by the House.
The motion simply allowed the introduction of the bill which
has now been introduced to the House. It has received first
reading in the House. We have an additional order that says the
House may continue to sit this evening past the ordinary hour of
adjournment until a minister of the crown moves adjournment.
That is all we have and that is the way the matter sits at the
moment. Members should be content. We will see what develops
in the course of the afternoon.
The Speaker: I wish I could say I am completely blameless in
all of this. When I put the motion, I paused after the word
``and''. I did not see anyone rising in their place for debate.
It could be said that I should have called for debate. I did not
but I understood that if there was going to be debate, hon.
members would have risen at that time. That is why I went on to
the second part of the motion. I put before you that I am sort of
caught in a bind here. Perhaps I should have said the word
debate, but I thought I waited long enough.
(1545)
If an error has been made it surely has not been made by
anyone but your Speaker. I do not know what the resolution of
this should be. By the rules we have, the motion is deemed to
have been adopted and carried and the matter cannot be
reopened.
I would hope hon. members would give enough leeway to the
Chair. I wish I was blameless. I wish I had used the word debate.
I understood that hon. members would rise if they wanted to
debate, so in the absence of anyone rising I am going to rule in
favour, that the motion is now carried. I am going to rule that the
matter cannot be reopened. I am hoping for the understanding of
hon. members. Perhaps you would give your Speaker a little
leeway.
I do not want to prolong this. If the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake has something to add, I know it is
probably against the rules but I will hear him out.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I certainly understand the dilemma you are in
because I face a similar dilemma at this end of the House. With
all due respect, I believe you are aware that this is the first time
in this Parliament the government has seen fit to utilize this
section of the Standing Orders.
Therefore, when the minister rose to state that he was rising
under section 53 of the Standing Orders, I immediately reached
into my desk, pulled out the Standing Orders I have here, and
was reading the Standing Orders as you were reading the
motion.
It took me a couple of moments to realize that there was a
debate on the motion itself. I like many members of the House
take some time to understand the full implications of every
standing order. With respect, I think it would have been
appropriate had the word debate been used to prompt individual
members to their feet should they have wished to debate the
issue.
Having said that and understanding your position, Mr.
Speaker, and given the nature of the debate, the fact that there is
much information about the dispute the government is
introducing legislation on, perhaps members may wish to reflect
upon it.
I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to allow for
this hour of debate to carry forward and therefore allow some of
this to be discussed prior to putting the motion itself.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, consultation taking place at the moment on the
issue to determine whether or not this would be advisable. If and
when the House decides to revert to that, this would be no
reflection upon the excellent ruling of Mr. Speaker. It would
only be because of unanimous consent of the House to revert to
that, should the House decide to do so.
While consultation is going on I reiterate for the Chair a
further point. On reflection of the issue raised by the hon.
member some moments ago, there seems to have been confusion
about the fact that the motion as proposed by the minister
discussed provision for the hour of adjournment tonight. That
seems to have given way to some confusion between that and the
one hour to debate the motion itself. I believe that was perhaps
the cause of the confusion in the hon. member's mind.
Nevertheless, consultation having been achieved, I am
pleased to report that we are prepared to consider unanimous
consent.
(1550 )
An hon. member: No.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, on second reflection we will have
to wait for that to happen.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, having done the negotiating, I think you would find, in
light of what has happened, that we are quite prepared to ensure
when the bill comes up for debate that time be permitted to the
New
10526
Democratic Party to participate in the debate on the bill which
otherwise might be jeopardized by some other arrangement.
I undertake to ensure in all negotiations about the debate on
the bill that time be permitted to the NDP to participate in the
debate. I think that will solve the problem. We need not reopen
the issue.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, in light of what has taken place
here, I think out of consideration we would accept the offer put
forward by the hon. member.
However I wish to stress that the point of the intervention was
that the use of the standing order in this case was not introduced
properly either by the government or in our understanding of the
ability to debate early.
We realize even in the event of the debate carrying on through
the evening that New Democrats would likely have an
opportunity to speak. However the problem that exists is that the
legislation the government is bringing forward, which the
government is scheduling to pass this evening, may not be
necessary given what is happening on the west coast. Therefore
we should debate that process prior to debating the motion itself.
The Speaker: The dilemma that we face in the House seems
to have at least a reasonable chance to be resolved without
reverting in any way.
The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake has
made his point clear. I personally thank him for his
understanding. I probably should have said the word debate. I
assure him that the next time I will use the word debate.
My ruling would be that the motion is carried. I want to put the
matter to one side, understanding of course the agreement of the
governing party that hon. members will have a chance to fully
participate in the debate. It would seem that there is unanimous
agreement. Is there unanimous agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: I thank hon. members for their help.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Wild Rose,
requested that you consider an emergency debate tonight on the
very issue that will be dealt with in the bill. That confirms the
feelings of the hon. member that it is a very serious matter which
needed to be discussed by the House.
In light of recent developments the hon. member should
withdraw the request. It seems redundant to ask for an
emergency debate when we will actually be dealing with the
legislation we called for yesterday in the House.
The Speaker: I thank the hon. House leader of the Reform
Party. I am sorry I will not be able to hear my hon. friend for
Wild Rose. I was looking forward to hearing what he was going
to say to the House.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of
Papers be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
10526
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from March 14 consideration of the
motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy
of the government.
(1555 )
Hon. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Secretary of State (Training
and Youth), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the
House to speak today on a matter of great importance to the
economic and social future of the country, namely the budget
presented by the Minister of Finance two weeks ago.
In order to fully understand the measures taken by the
Minister of Finance, it is useful to recall the fiscal and economic
reality that confronted us upon taking power just 16 months ago.
Unemployment and interest rates were high. Corporate
profitability had plummeted. Business failures were at record
levels. Many Canadians had quite literally lost hope. We were
confronted with a huge national debt and growing deficit that
threatened our economic and social futures.
It was a daunting challenge. However we tackled it head on
and made job creation, economic growth and fiscal
responsibility our top priorities.
[Translation]
The Speaker: My colleagues, if you have some things to
discuss, I would ask you to do it behind the curtains. I now give
the floor back to the Secretary of State.
10527
[English]
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: I thank hon. gentlemen on the other
side for observing the decorum accorded each speaker on such
an important issue as the budget debate. I hope I did not lose any
time.
We tackled the issues head on and made job creation,
economic growth and fiscal responsibility our top priorities.
The new budget is the latest step in our ongoing drive to restore
Canada's fiscal health and reinforce investor confidence. When
completed this drive will make Canada a magnet for investment,
which will in turn encourage economic growth and create the
jobs and training opportunities Canadians need to cope with the
technological revolution under way.
The measures announced by the government on budget day
were more than a cost cutting exercise. They represent a major
restructuring that will redefine the way government operates
and what role government will play in people's daily lives. The
budget represents a basic restructuring of Canadian society as a
whole.
As the Minister of Finance stated in his budget speech,
government must only do what it does best and leave the rest for
those who can do it better. This presents Canadians with an
incredible opportunity to step forward and have a direct impact
on the way their lives are shaped and the way their communities
develop.
As we debate the merits of the budget today and the necessary
actions the government must take to get its fiscal house in order,
we must remember we are not in a unique position in Canada.
Other countries have waited too long before taking adequate
measures and have in a sense hit the wall, while others have
taken strong and affirmative actions and as a result have
positioned their economies to compete aggressively in the new
global marketplace.
We can learn a lot from those examples. New Zealand is a case
in point of a country that found itself with debt and deficit that
became too large for its economy to sustain. Over the course of
the past eight years New Zealand has gone through a dramatic
and painful restructuring that saw whole government programs
cut, eliminated or commercialized, user fees introduced for
many aspects of government services, and the introduction of
new tax measures such as the GST.
As a result of these measures New Zealand has drastically
restructured its government and improved its fiscal health to the
point where it posted a deficit of 1 per cent surplus of deficit to
GDP ratio. However the painful lesson learned by New
Zealanders and one we must not ignore is what happens when we
wait too long to take these measures and what happens when we
essentially hit the wall. When this happens countries quickly
discover that decisions on social spending are no longer theirs to
make but instead made for them by investors and international
agencies.
(1600 )
Sweden, a country that has been long looked at as a successful
model of society with a highly successful social safety net is on
the verge of hitting the wall. In 1994 Sweden's debt to GDP ratio
was an alarming 93 per cent while its deficit to GDP ratio was at
11.2 per cent. The year before, Sweden's deficit to GDP ratio
was at an all-time high of 13 per cent.
The government there is facing enormous obstacles to
overcome and put its fiscal house in order. Because Sweden has
waited so long to restructure how its government operates, the
very social programs that are the envy of the world are
threatened simply because it has lost many of its options to
manoeuvre.
This is a situation we must avoid in Canada. On the other
hand, there are shining examples of countries that have
identified the need to reform before it is too late.
Australia has taken a systematic and measured approach to
restructuring how its government operates. It has been done in a
way that not only brings down the expenses of government but
also makes its programs more efficient, more effective and more
relevant to the people who really need help and support. In 1994
Australia posted a 34.4 per cent debt to GDP ratio and a deficit to
GDP ratio of 4 per cent.
That is why we have to act now. Our debt to GDP ratio has
consistently been rising from 17 per cent in the mid-1970s to
more than 71 per cent today. In order to ensure that we remain
the masters of our own destiny, of our own ship, we must
change. We must adapt.
Last year the government spent nearly $58 billion on social
programs. During that same period $38 billion went to pay for
interest on the public debt. If we do not get our fiscal house in
order now, these interest payments on the debt will be greater
than what we spend on social programs. If unchecked, we as
other countries have, will hit the wall.
That is what this budget is all about. It is a major step in
restructuring the government so that it can give us the kind of
strong foundation we need upon which we can build strong
social reforms which truly reflect and address the needs and
priorities of Canadians in the 1990s.
Initiatives contained in the budget actually support Canada's
social policies by creating an economic and fiscal climate
conducive to job creation. This budget reflects the sense of
balance expressed by a man from the Northwest Territories who
responded to the social security reform workbook. He said:
``There must be a basic safety net for those who, for whatever
reason, are unable to provide the encouragement and the
opportunity for people to become self-sufficient''.
Some people have been concerned about how the budget
might affect Canada's social programs. This is not surprising
given the vast amount of speculation and misinformation which
10528
surfaced prior to the release of the budget. No doubt most of this
has now been laid to rest by the budget.
For those who might still have some lingering doubts, the best
evidence of the government's unwaivering commitment to
protecting our social programs comes from the social security
reform initiative currently under way.
This initiative seeks to improve our current system by helping
Canadians respond to technological and workplace change. It
seeks to assure them of the jobs training and security they
require. It does this by improving the efficiency of the system,
thus guaranteeing its sustainability in the future.
At the same time, our government has no intention of waiting
for the benefits that will flow from this budget and social
security reform. Instead, we are acting now to ensure that all
Canadians have the job and training opportunities they need to
enter the mainstream of this country.
Here I think especially of those programs directed toward
some of the neediest people in this country, the aboriginal
people who have traditionally faced barriers to obtaining access
to employment, training and promotions.
(1605 )
Pathways is a program designed for aboriginal people by
aboriginal people in partnership with the Government of
Canada. It is currently being reviewed to ensure it continues to
reflect the needs of the aboriginal people in labour market
training.
In addition, the new Canada social transfer, CST, will not
affect aboriginal peoples living on reserves since there is no
relationship between the CST and funding arrangements for
social assistance and services delivered on reserves. This is
because the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development provides funding on reserves through
arrangements that are separate from the current Canada
assistance plan. These arrangements will continue to be separate
from the CST.
As well, the CST will not alter the existing responsibilities of
the provinces for social assistance services to aboriginal peoples
living off reserve. This goes for the government's program
review as well.
While the program review will affect all aspects of
government operations, the government is committed to
providing programs and services to aboriginal peoples. We will
continue to live up to our commitments in such areas as human
resources development, aboriginal strategic initiatives, First
Nations and northern communities child care and the pathways
strategy which I mentioned earlier.
In preparing for the budget the government used a series of
overarching principles to guide its course.
First, it was critical that government get its own house in
order. The budget must focus on cutting spending, not raising
taxes.
Second, every dollar counts. Governments do not have
money. They are given money and with it they must act like
every dollar counts because every dollar does count.
Third, it had to be fair and equitable, fair among our regions
and fair among individual Canadians. In this essence the north
has not been spared in the budget, but has shared equally and
responsibly its burden of fiscal restraint.
As an example, the territorial formula financing payments to
the Government of the Northwest Territories will be frozen in
1995-96 and reduced by 5 per cent in 1996-97. This will result
in $8 million less in the first year and $58 million less in the
second year. It should be noted that the majority of the
population of the north is aboriginal.
Weather offices will close in Yellowknife and Inuvik,
eliminating seven positions. There too, a bit of innovation and
imagination is needed. It opens up an opportunity perhaps for
the private sector to look at the possibility of offering this kind
of service, maybe in partnership with learning institutions to
train the individuals necessary to provide that service.
The Geological Survey of Canada office in Yellowknife will
close. Considering the amount of activity in that area with
diamond exploration, gold and a whole array of mineral
exploration going on, it has been difficult to do that, but I think
there is a commitment from the industry itself to pursue
interests in that area. It is something we are living with.
The Canada-N.W.T. forestry co-operation agreement will not
be renewed when it expires on March 31. The federal excise tax
on gasoline and aviation gasoline increased by 1.5 cents,
increasing the price of goods and travel in the north. We already
have prohibitive costs since for the most part the first choice and
option for travel is by air. We do not have a highway system.
Most of the isolated communities are off the transportation grid.
The tax on airline travel increased by $5 per flight from $50 to
$55, increasing the cost of air travel which is so important to
northerners. We do not have the luxury of just getting into our
cars or vehicles and driving out onto the highway. The highways
we do have are in need of repair and are being repaired
constantly by the Government of the Northwest Territories with
ever depleting resources.
It shows, that every part of the country was affected,
including that part of the country. It is the whole effort of getting
back
10529
to basics. People are taking another look at how they do
business, how government runs its administration, its
bureaucracy and delivers services.
(1610)
The elimination of the public utilities income tax transfer is
not just a problem for Alberta or some of the other provinces. It
is a problem for different communities in my area. It will mean
the elimination of $700,000 in transfers to consumers of private
utility companies.
This is a very hard pill to swallow. In this country we have a
partnership with individual Canadians to get our house in order
and this is what this is all about.
As difficult and painful as it is, cuts in budgets and programs
to aboriginal friendship centres will affect how the friendship
centres in the north operate and deliver their programs.
However, northerners are resilient people. Like every Canadian,
they recognize the importance of getting our fiscal house in
order.
Northerners also see opportunity in this budget. Occasions
like this one when new arrangements are to be forged and new
relationships to be established create positive opportunities for
the territorial government to have greater flexibility and for
northerners to have a greater say in developing and
administering the programs and services which address their
needs.
This is an excellent opportunity to see the successful
completion of the northern mineral accord. This can give the
territorial government along with its other partners the
aboriginal groups greater responsibility and autonomy over the
economy and fiscal situation in the north. Greater autonomy
also means greater flexibility over the programs and services
required to meet the needs of northerners.
Every part of this country wants to become self-sustaining
and the Northwest Territories is no different with all of its
complex diversity of cultures. Its population is not just one race
or one group of people, but it is a whole mix of people. Greater
autonomy also means there is greater opportunity for
co-operation, for consensus building and a whole range of
human dynamics that must be considered.
Restructuring through program review, the territorial transfer
or the CST also presents the opportunity for constructive
dialogue in a process that is inclusive. It is a process which gives
a greater voice to all stakeholders and not just government,
including community leaders, activists, social workers, youth
organizations. It is a comprehensive and inclusive process. It is
an opportunity that can lead to greater independence from
government, to become increasingly self-sufficient and
self-empowering, to become masters of their own destiny and
masters of their own ship.
The fourth principle used by the Minister of Finance is that we
must have priorities as a country that mirror our needs as a
people. These priorities must be reflected in the way
government defines its role. It is that principle I would like to
expand on and what this will mean on how government will
operate in the future, but more important, on what role
government will play in the lives of people.
In order to ensure that the needs of Canadians are met, to
ensure that programs and services remain relevant and to ensure
our continuing economic sovereignty, the budget measures also
included a major restructuring of government through program
review. Its main objective was to review all categories of federal
government spending in order to bring about the most effective
and cost efficient way of delivering programs and services to
Canadians.
The exercise of program review is not simply a way of
bringing down how much government costs. It also makes
government more competent and more relevant to the people
who really need help and support.
It is time for government to get back to the basics and to
reflect the priorities of people. As the Minister of Finance stated
in his budget address: ``We are acting on the new vision of the
role of government in the economy and in society. In many cases
that means smaller government. In all cases, it means smarter
government''.
This government restructuring will have implications on what
role government will play in the daily lives of people. To a
certain degree government restructuring also means a
restructuring of society, and that is where the real opportunity
lies in the budget. As government gets back to the basics there
are opportunities for Canadians to step forward, to rethink and
redefine their values and responsibilities to themselves, their
families and their communities.
(1615 )
Governments do not have all the answers and solutions. In
redefining its role in Canadian society, the government will
need people to step forward and share the burden of
responsibility. Where governments have failed in the past,
individual Canadians will have to stand up, play positive roles
and contribute not only their knowledge but local solutions to
local problems and also their sweat equity, their sweat, blood,
and tears, to ensure success.
The government is calling on Canadians to participate and to
be part of a process that is going to set the future straight for
years and generations to come, to ensure a future for our
children. This commitment will need to be ongoing even with
restructuring; government can only go so far.
I conclude by saying that in the end active participation is the
ultimate challenge of the budget. It is a challenge and a
10530
responsibility not only to members of the government and
members of the House, but to every person in the country.
As the Prime Minister stated, the key-
The Deputy Speaker: I have given the minister extra time
already. I am sorry, her time has expired, unless there is
unanimous consent that she be given more time.
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
I listened attentively to my colleague's speech. The problems
she described in her region sound pretty similar to those in mine,
except that the solutions she offers are almost unacceptable, and
I will tell you why.
If I understood correctly, she is telling the poor, people with
major problems, the unemployed, people on UI and income
security that they must show more imagination and initiative.
I also heard the other day one of her colleagues on the other
side of this House say that a former member of Parliament who
has been without a job for eight years is having a very hard time
finding work even though he is well-known. Yet, he is not
lacking in either imagination or initiative.
Whenever the poor-whether it is a single person, a couple or
a family with a father, mother and four children-are
unemployed, they are asked to show initiative and imagination.
Yet, when a person whose salary was much higher has trouble
finding another job, we commiserate.
The budget may also hit seniors next year. In my region,
farmers face cuts of 15 per cent this year and 15 per cent next
year for a total of 30 per cent, which represents about $2,500 a
year for the average farmer. This leads me to ask my colleague if
we are looking for revenue in the right places or if we simply get
the money from the pockets of the most disadvantaged and the
poorest.
My colleague did not say that these people were lazy, but she
said that they should show more imagination and initiative.
Seventy-five per cent of the time, they are full of imagination
and initiative, but they are still without jobs. I would like her to
explain this to me.
(1620 )
[English]
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my
colleague that anything I said certainly was not prejudicial to the
people who are poor or people in different wage categories. We
understand we have equality of opportunity. Everyone has the
opportunity to participate. Everyone has the opportunity of
freedom of speech, to be mobile, to move, to look for the
opportunities. Sometimes it is more difficult. I agree that can be
a problem.
When I talked about innovation I was not just talking about
the consumers of government programs or people looking for
jobs. I was talking about all sectors of society. It is a process
where government will participate but sometimes people or
organizations can do it better so we will defer to them because it
will be more cost efficient and more effective.
As for opportunities for people, we cannot step back and be
ashamed of the fact that we have managed to create 400,000
jobs. One hundred thousand of those were directly related to
government initiatives. Many of those jobs were in Quebec. We
are not ashamed of that. We are quite happy to recognize that and
affirm that we have a commitment to continue helping people.
It is not just government's responsibility. People want us to
change the way in which government works so that they will
have the opportunity to be active participants rather than to have
a passive role. They are dying for the opportunities. We want to
make those available to them.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, in the remarks of the Secretary of State for
Training and Youth she commented quite extensively about
programs for aboriginal people and the ability of aboriginal
people to participate in our economy as a result of budgetary
measures.
She mentioned a number of programs but I notice she did not
mention the aboriginal economic development program,
something that is absolutely essential to provide assistance to
aboriginal people who have difficulty in achieving financial
commitments from existing financial institutions to develop the
economic means by which to create self-sufficiency within their
own communities.
The aboriginal economic development program, just when it
is needed most, has received a more than unfair reduction in
commitment from the federal government, a reduction of
approximately 30 per cent as I understand it.
I wonder if the secretary of state could comment on the need
for the aboriginal business development program and what her
thoughts are about this unfair cut or reduction in federal
commitment to that program.
Ms. Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, I was not speaking just
to aboriginal issues. I was speaking to those within the
department that I work in. I was not speaking to the ones in the
Department of Indian and Northern Affairs or Industry. I am not
ashamed to speak to those issues. I am not afraid and I am not
reluctant. I just did not mention it.
There was a 25 per cent cut. Part of the effort in the program
review and looking at the way we deliver services to people is to
make these programs more efficient, more effective, more
directly related to delivering services to the individuals, to the
10531
people they serve rather than developing an administrative
bureaucracy which would tend to serve the industry itself rather
than its clients.
Yes, we have made cuts. I just finished saying in my speech
that every Canadian is going to share the responsibility in this
exercise. I know. I am no stranger to the poverty of those people.
Those are my people. I understand that.
Every Canadian is going to share the responsibility. Let us
weigh things fairly. The Department of Indian and Northern
Affairs which serves aboriginal people was the only department
that has an $8 billion budget that is going to have an increase of I
believe 6 per cent when all other departments were cut.
(1625 )
I acknowledge that there have been cuts to some aboriginal
programs but there have been cuts to almost every program and
service across the board in every department and crown
corporation.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will
share my time with my Bloc colleague, the hon. member for
Matapédia-Matane.
The Minister of Finance tabled his budget on Monday,
February 27. I rise today in this House to state my position, my
concerns and my disappointment in reading this budget. I will
also share with you my personal analysis of the negative impact
this budget will have on the participation rate of Quebecers in
the Department of National Defence. While this budget is well
received by the business community in general, and foreign
investors in particular, the fact remains that once again low and
middle income taxpayers are the hardest hit.
The government wants us to believe that Canadians from
every walk of life, including the wealthiest, are affected by its
budget cuts, but there is a world of difference between the
finance minister's claims and actual fact. The fact of the matter
is that the wealthy have until 1999 to convert their family trusts,
to shield them from the minister's cuts and not pay any tax on
their accumulated and future wealth. Also, the Liberal budget
completely ignores the recommendations made by the Auditor
General of Canada in his last report which made reference to
$6.6 billion in unpaid taxes. The federal government does not
propose anything to recover that money.
How can the government pass up so much money without
immediately taking the necessary measures? Is $6.6 billion not
enough money to spur it to take concrete and effective action?
Let me give you another example which illustrates the
inconsistency of the budget and fiscal strategy announced at the
end of February by the minister, and which shows that the
minister's goal of tax fairness is merely an illusion. This
example is also taken from the Auditor General's report: In
Revenue Canada's opinion, 470 accounts of over $100,000 each,
representing a total of $350 million, were at the collection letter
stage, which means that no collection officer was involved,
except in terms of reviewing the risk of loss.
By not taking action in this specific case, the Liberal
government is sending the message that it is easier to get the
money from low and middle income taxpayers, than from
corporations or wealthy individuals who do not pay their fair
share. This system is supposed to be fair, but who profits from
it?
In my opinion, the 1995-1996 budget plan includes other
examples of unfairness. Take a look at the summary of the Main
Estimates, by department and agencies. Two thirds of the
departments and agencies will see their budget reduced, while
the other third will be getting more money.
Who will get an increase in 1995-96? The Senate, with a total
budget of more than $42 million; the Governor General, with a
budget of over $10 million; the Department of Indian Affairs,
with an increase of $327 million; Treasury Board, an increase of
$32 million; Finance, an increase of more than $9 billion, $9
billion to service the debt; the Privy Council, which is
responsible for defending the ``no'' side in the Quebec
referendum, will have an increase of nearly $5 million; and the
list goes on.
(1630)
And even worse, the federal government's total estimates will
increase by more than $3.7 billion, which will bring total
spending up to $164.8 billion. Incredible. With a deficit of $37.4
billion for 1994-95 and a projected deficit of more than $32.7
billion for 1995-96, we are sinking deeper and deeper into the
hole.
By the end of the current fiscal year, the net federal debt will
be $578.8 billion. Incredible. The federal government's present
financial situation is a reflection of what the future has in store.
Furthermore, the budget brought down by the Minister of
Finance contains no prospects for jobs in the short and medium
term. Where are the jobs we were promised in the Liberal red
book? Ask the federal public servants who believed those
promises.
The steps taken by the federal government to put this budget
together fall far short of the expectations of taxpayers in Quebec
and Canada. These measures are an outright breach of our social
contract.
Now for a few words about the Department of National
Defence. The budget announced cuts totalling $1.6 billion over
three years. The Bloc Quebecois, in the minority report of the
Special Joint Committee on Canada's Defence Policy, insisted
10532
on additional cuts of 15 per cent, which would put the National
Defence budget at $10 billion as of the first year.
I question the federal government's strategy, since additional
cuts could have been made in certain budget items in the
Department of National Defence, including capital
expenditures, materiel and new equipment purchasing policy,
the armed forces organization and, finally, program
management.
For the same three year period, the Bloc Quebecois proposed
cuts of $4.8 billion-three times the government's figure.
Unfortunately, the federal government preferred to slash
transfer payments to the provinces and cut the federal public
service this year.
In this regard, I would like to recall the commitment the
Liberal Party of Canada made in its famous red book, which it
did not keep. It said that, once in power, it would set up a defence
conversion program that would have attractive spinoffs for
private enterprise. This was their promise.
What did the budget say about defence industry conversion?
Not one word-nothing. For the past 15 years, the federal
government and the Department of National Defence have failed
in their role of equitable allocators of military expenditures for
Quebec.
In a study for the École nationale d'administration publique,
made public in February, the author revealed a shortfall of $650
million a year for Quebec.
The situation is very clear. Unfair treatment in the allocation
of military expenditures has had disastrous consequences for a
number of areas of economic activity in Quebec. Although
Quebec contributes 25.4 per cent of the budget for national
defence, it gets back a meagre 17 per cent in military spending.
It has been the same old story for the last 15 years. This very
unfavourable distribution continues to cost Quebec jobs and
investment dollars.
Quebec is even worse off when it comes to the funds that the
Department of National Defence allocates for research and
development.
(1635)
In 1990-91, Quebec received only 12.45 per cent of this
spending-12.45 compared with the 73 per cent that went to
Ontario. The situation has not changed since then. In addition,
francophones have great difficulty rising through the ranks of
the Canadian armed forces. While francophones occupy
between 22 and 29 per cent of the lower-ranking positions, they
occupy only 10 to 13 per cent of the higher ranks, according to
the latest statistics. It is not difficult for francophones to enlist
in the forces, but it is very difficult for them to become generals.
It always has been and still is.
In 1994, the Minister of National Defence took away the
country's only French-language military college, the military
college in Saint-Jean. What a decision! Once again, the federal
Minister of Finance is asking Quebec to do its share in his
budget. The government is closing the military base at
Saint-Hubert. Over 600 people will lose their jobs. It is cutting
another 285 jobs on the Bagotville base. Before the cuts, less
than 15 per cent of all federal military facilities were located in
Quebec. What is left? Not much.
What should we tell taxpayers in Quebec who feel that the
federal government costs them too much money for the return
they get on their investment? If Quebec were to patriate the
power to tax and to spend-about $30 billion is in question
here-we would be able to set up a system which really is fair
and we would make our own decisions. That is how Quebec will
best be able to develop and grow.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my colleague for his remarks. They were
spoken with such passion they left me almost breathless.
I would like to put a question to my colleague which will take
him a little beyond his remarks. It is probably well known to him
as it is to many members in this House that I have an interest in
special interest groups.
The budget did introduce for the first time the concept that
new guidelines would be brought in for the funding of these
special interest groups which receive direct grants from
government with very little accountability for what are often
advocacy groups.
Does he feel this is an area of reform for the government
applicable to Quebec? Should groups which have these special
agendas see their funding cut as we hope to see elsewhere in the
country?
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my
colleague for his question. All I can say is that if we look at the
budget as a whole, the federal government faced a $37 billion or
$38 billion deficit last year, compared with a $33 billion deficit
forecast for this year. The government is saving money on the
backs of the provinces. Since the provinces will have less
money, they will have to cut spending for post-secondary
education, health care and other services under provincial
jurisdiction. That, in my opinion, is tragic.
I would also like to go back to the closure of the military
college in Saint-Jean. I think that this is an appalling decision. It
is appalling for Canada, because Canada has always maintained
that it is a bilingual country and tried to give that impression.
However, by closing the military college in Saint-Jean-as we
can see, enrolment is already way down, a drop of 40 to 60 per
cent this year-the government is simply telling us that, at the
end of the day, bilingualism is not important.
10533
(1640)
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on February 27, the Minister of Finance tabled his budget in this
House. This event extensively covered by the media was
preceded by a fear-mongering effort to scare the public. They
said the budget would hurt all taxpayers, but they did not tell us
the most important part.
And that is that the creditors to whom the Canadian debt is
owed wanted to make sure Canada would be able to pay the
interest on its debt in the years to come. That is what the problem
was. It was also most important to let it be known that the federal
government was waiting until after the Quebec referendum to
make major cuts, once again deceiving the people.
When I was first elected to this place by the residents of the
riding of Matapédia-Matane, I was sure I was coming here to
serve the interests of my region and that is what I have been
doing ever since: serving the interests of my fellow citizens. But
since February 27, I have had to admit that it is not really the
hon. members and ministers opposite who run the country, but
rather big financial players.
What are the ministers and members across the way doing
here if they let their Minister of Finance table a budget like this
without saying a word? I must admit that certain members did
stand up and denounce this budget and I am proud of them. I only
wish others would follow suit.
What power do these members and ministers have in this
House? I hope they are not mere puppets. When the creditors of
a country tell its finance minister what to do, it means that the
country has lost its monetary and financial independence.
Who has led us into that tunnel? None other than the Prime
Minister, when he was the Minister of Finance. The process
started with him. That farce shows a serious lack of respect for
Canadian taxpayers, particularly those from Quebec, for whom
the big cuts will come after the referendum.
Why not tell the people the truth? Why not tell them now what
they are in for? Stop hiding your despicable and partisan goals.
The Minister of Finance's action lacks any consistency and is a
monumental hoax. I can tell the minister that Quebecers will
remember him and his party on referendum day. My constituents
in the riding of Matapédia-Matane will not be fooled.
The federal budget will hit them very hard. Let me give you a
few examples. There will be cuts at the Maurice Lamontagne
Institute, in Sainte-Flavie, in the Supply and Services division
in Matane, and in the offices of the Department of Human
Resources Development; fishermen will be hurt by the service
charge in fishing ports and harbours; cuts will also affect
farmers and milk producers; finally, there will be a gas tax
increase, in a region where gas is already more expensive than
elsewhere. Last year, Rimouski residents blocked a road in an
attempt to have the price of gas go down. It did go down one
cent, but now it is going up one and a half cents.
Since the budget was tabled, the only ones to speak in favour
of the government's strategy were the creditors, and even they
had mixed feelings about it.
(1645)
A few days later, we were again faced with rising interest rates
and a falling dollar on financial markets, a quick response to the
minister's budget.
Blaming Quebec for this country's financial situation shows
an unprecedented lack of logic. If Quebec were to blame, would
members opposite not tell us to become sovereign as fast as
possible?
The impact of this budget will be shocking, and pretty soon
the minister will tell this House he can no longer control the
deficit or stop the growth of the debt.
In the days following the budget, we saw that Canada's
provinces, including Quebec, rejected the minister's vision, and
today, everyone openly condemns that vision, especially
Ontario.
And now for a closer look at the disastrous impact this budget
will have, starting with the catastrophic impact the spiralling
federal debt will have on job creation and corporate investment.
For people who do not have a job and those who will be
affected by unemployment insurance cuts, the future is very
bleak. Because of the poor economic climate, consumers will
spend less, and businesses will postpone investment projects
because of the high cost of borrowing.
It is clear that this government, which promised hundreds of
thousands of jobs, has missed its target by a mile. It misled
everyone. I would say it practically lied to the entire population.
It has turned its back on its commitments.
In addition to letting the debt grow at an alarming
rate-everyone is saying it will reach $603 billion in 1996-the
government has just cut 45,000 jobs in the Canadian public
service. This government is now producing unemployment
instead of encouraging job creation. How many of these
government employees will join the ranks of the unemployed?
And there are hundreds of indirect jobs that will disappear in the
process.
In the outlying regions, these job losses will have a disastrous
impact on an economy already weakened by a recession that is
still smouldering.
10534
The government has just created a feeling of uncertainly,
which will have very serious repercussions on the performance
of the public service as a whole and on other related areas of
activity.
There is nothing in this budget for the 800,000 unemployed
and people looking for work in Quebec. On the contrary.
Fortunately, the Government of Quebec knows how to create
jobs.
The only good federal program is the infrastructure program,
and it is being cut by $200 million.
We are all aware that Canada's debt has mortgaged the
country's future. Quebecers have made this point repeatedly. At
the hearings on the future of Quebec, everyone where I come
from fears the worst, because it is clear that the ship is leaking
and the captain has abandoned his duties. The people of Quebec
will give a clear response to this government in the upcoming
referendum, and neither fear nor threats will change the course
of history. After the victory of the ``yes'' votes, the other
provinces will have to decide what sort of country they want. I
am sure that others will want to follow the road the people of
Quebec are preparing to take.
In concluding, I would say: Long live Canada without
Quebec, and long live Quebec without Canada.
(1650)
The Deputy Speaker: It seems that I must split the time.
First, the hon. member for Durham.
[English]
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to my colleague's comments. Every time we get
into this debate somehow Quebec seems to be a very interesting
place with no debt problems but a simple examination of its
financial record indicates quite the reverse. I believe the
province of Quebec's deficit is currently about $70 billion. This
was done in Quebec by Quebecers. It continues to expand and if
my memory serves me correctly, it is probably expanding a lot
faster than the federal government's deficit.
While the leader of the Government of Quebec is out talking
about sovereignty, he is not dealing with the very problems of
his own province. It costs $5 million for a sovereignty debate
that nobody wants. This is irresponsible. I do not believe the
people of Quebec are going to be happy with this expenditure or
with the continual pushing of Quebec into a deficit situation.
Bonds are a big financer of government debt. Quebec
government rated bonds continue to escalate their interest costs.
Why? Because people have many misgivings about where this is
going.
The hon. member talked about job creation. Job creation and
job losses are an absolute. They must be netted together. Sure,
there will be job losses in the civil service. Everybody in
Canada, including Quebecers, have said how necessary it is that
governments downsize and become more efficient.
I have heard my colleagues from the Bloc say those very
things. Stop duplication. When the government stops
duplication they say: ``You should not lay these people off''.
The reality is that 433,000 new jobs were created in Canada last
year, net job creation. That is positive and it includes Quebec.
Finally, $78 billion of the federal government debt is held by
Quebecers. They believe in Canada, but what is their future with
this crazy concept they have? How are they going to get
reimbursed in this strange emulation of a new country? There is
$78 billion that Quebecers hold in Canada.
I would like to have the hon. member answer those questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Canuel: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for his question. You talk about duplication. I want to
know what duplication has been eliminated over the past few
years. None.
Another point. I agree that Quebec has a high debt. However,
for years and years, decades and decades, the federal
government has been transferring money to Ontario and to other
provinces for research and development, while the money it has
been transferring to Quebec has been in the form of
unemployment insurance benefits. One thing is sure: when one
region is without work while research funds are sent to another,
there is something wrong.
Regarding sovereignty, I want to say that even though our
debt is high, we can handle it, and that we are prepared to pay
part of Canada's debt, because we are part of it and we have a
moral obligation to do so. If I were on the other side of the
House, a government member from Ontario, the maritimes or
the west, do you know what I would say to the Bloc? I would say:
``If you want to leave, go''.
Why try holding us back? Why tire yourselves out in the
effort? We are convinced, I am convinced that we are able to
manage our debt intelligently and at the same time help to pay
off yours.
(1655)
Then what more do you want? I, myself, have never
understood why the rest of Canada is saying: ``Why not you stay
with us. This is terrible. It is going to cost you''. We are going to
spend a few million dollars on the referendum. But how much
are you going to spend? I rephrase my question. If we are so poor
and have so many problems, why are you so desperate to keep us
in the federation?
10535
[English]
Ms. Susan Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform
the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member
for Davenport.
Many Canadians are concerned with Canada's future
prosperity and with maintaining our quality of life. The finance
minister's February 27 budget is a key element in maintaining
prosperity and Canada's way of life.
The budget is a plan that will bring this country into the 21st
century. It demonstrates our commitment to reshaping
government to meet the needs of Canadians and to deliver on our
promise to get our fiscal house in order. It supports our primary
economic objective to sustain growth and job creation by cutting
our deficit. It demonstrates our commitment to fiscally
responsible government.
I will not make any bones about it; I believe that the budget is
tough, very tough, but fair. The budget is tough but fair both in
what it does but also in what it does not do.
Like many members of Parliament, I took advantage of the
finance minister's opening up of the budget process. The
government held the widest and most open prebudget
consultations ever held. To ensure that my constituents had their
say, I held two prebudget meetings in my riding of
Essex-Windsor. The actions of the finance minister proved that
this was not a cynical exercise. My constituents and many
Canadians asked the finance minister to tackle the deficit in real
terms. That is what this budget does.
This government is the first government in years to set deficit
reduction targets and to meet those targets. Let me reassure the
House that the deficit will be brought under control and our
deficit targets will be met. The government has shown that it has
the resolve and commitment to Canada's long term future to do
what is necessary to meet our targets.
By 1996-97 Canada's deficit will be at 3 per cent of gross
domestic product. That is $24.3 billion. If the economy keeps
growing, and it will, this figure may be even lower. The bottom
line is close to a cut of $7 in spending for every dollar for new
revenues over the next three years.
To ensure fairness, both business and individuals are being
asked to share the load. Recognizing that individuals' income
taxes have increased over the last decade at a much faster rate
than corporate taxes, the budget includes measures to address
that inequity.
The large corporation tax rate will rise from .2 per cent to .225
per cent, an increase of 12.5 per cent. The corporate surtax,
which is currently 3 per cent of the basic corporate tax rate, will
increase to 4 per cent. There will also be changes made to
strengthen Revenue Canada's ability to enforce the law and
ensure that all Canadians pay their fair share of taxes and to
reduce unfair competition for businesses that do play above
board, that play by the rules.
Banks and trust companies are also being asked to contribute
further toward deficit reduction during the next year and a half.
They will contribute $100 million through a special tax on
deposit taking institutions.
Big business has often stated that it does not need or want the
level of assistance it receives from the federal government.
Accordingly, the government has listened and taken these
claims at their word. We will reduce spending on subsidies for
big business by close to 60 per cent over the next three years.
However, the government, unlike the last one, realizes that a
successful tackling of the deficit requires a two track approach,
as was advocated in our red book. To eliminate the deficit, the
government must also create a climate that creates jobs.
This budget recognizes that small and medium sized
businesses are the cornerstone of Canada's economy. They are
the number one job creator. To further help small business we
intend to work with Canada's banks and trust companies to
establish clear rules so that small business loans are easier to
get.
(1700 )
In my prebudget consultations many of my constituents
recommended Canada re-examine our commitment to foreign
aid in view of needs in Canada. The government has done this
and will reduce foreign aid by 20 per cent over the next three
years for savings of over $500 million.
Many of my constituents also questioned the need for so many
agencies, boards and commissions. As a result of the
government-wide review of these government bodies, decisions
have been made affecting 120 of them: 73 of these will be
closed, 47 will be streamlined and restructured. The result will
be 665 fewer government in council positions, fewer ministerial
appointments and savings of $10 million a year.
In my prebudget consultations my constituents had many
suggestions on what action the government should not take. Do
not eliminate RRSPs, they said, and we did not. Do not increase
personal income taxes. We did not. Do not introduce a health or
dental tax benefit. We did not. Do not eliminate capital gains
exemptions for farmers and small businesses. We did not. Do
not introduce a tax on casino winnings. We did not.
I have said that this budget is tough but fair. Many of the
reviews have also been tough but fair. A Windsor Star, editorial
of February 28 stated: ``What we can applaud in the budget is the
vow to create a smaller and smarter government. The 14 per cent
reduction in the civil service over the next three years combined
10536
with the $10 billion in cuts to departments will result in a
fundamental reshaping of government''.
The Windsor Star also reported that Windsor's business
community was encouraged, shocked even, by the wide swing of
the minister's budget axe.
The Windsor Chamber of Commerce chair, Othmar Stein, was
quoted in the Star as saying of the finance minister: ``He's got
the message. A lot of this was overdue. A lot of the subsidies are
gone, even for business''.
Mr. Stein, a vice-president of Chrysler, concluded: ``Overall
I'd say it's a very realistic budget, quite positive. It's one of the
first budgets in a number of years that has not been smoke and
mirrors.''
Aron Gampel of the Bank of Nova Scotia says it is a strong
fiscal statement that meets all the tests.
The Wall Street Journal reversed its editorial stance regarding
Canada, summed up in its headline several weeks before the
budget as ``Bankrupt Canada''. After the budget it proclaimed
Canada made a right turn.
The editorial commends the finance minister for showing the
determination needed for Canada to claw its way out of the debt
hole which decades of spendthrift policies landed it in.
The budget charts a new course for agriculture. In agriculture
the government has set a target to achieve by the turn of the
century, annual food exports valued at over $20 billion. This is
an increase of at least one-third over our record setting
performance in 1994.
To do this the government will be introducing a new export
credits guarantee program to support grain and other agri-food
export sales up to a value of $1 billion.
Consistent with the red book, the government will implement
a Canadian agri-food marketing council and Canadian
agri-food marketing service to ensure enhanced market
development and effective use of the global information
highway.
Our first fiscal year was not all doom and gloom. The
Canadian economy is stronger than it has been in years. Real
economic output grew at about 4.5 per cent in 1994, the fastest
of the G-7. Over 433,000 jobs were created in the past year,
almost all of them full time.
The unemployment rate has fallen by 1.7 percentage points
nationally. Manufacturing output is up over 9 percent in the past
year. Improved cost performance has lead to record breaking
exports, a growing trade surplus and a dramatic improvement in
the current account.
I assure my constituents the budget belongs to a Liberal
government. A Liberal government brought in new and
innovative programs in the sixties and seventies to meet the
challenges and needs of those decades. The government is
adapting all programs to meet the needs and challenges of the
nineties and the 21st century.
We understand change. We have always been at the forefront
of change. The budget is change. The Liberal Party has been
traditionally a pace setter. I know the budget sets the pace for the
21st century.
I will end with a comment one of my constituents sent me
during the prebudget process. With reference to the difficult
choices facing the Minister of Finance, he wished him resolve:
``My two young children will thank you, as you will be
remembered as the finance minister who saved Canada from
bankruptcy''.
(1705 )
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate.
Canadians know very well that we have inherited an economic
mess from the Conservatives and that steps must be taken to
reduce the deficit and the debt. On that we all agree.
The major preoccupation of this budget is to appease the
marketplace, in particular rating agencies. Having done so this
year one may expect Wall Street to demand more measures of
the same kind in future budgets.
To deal with this the Prime Minister is taking the issue of
currency speculators and their impact on national economies to
the next meeting in June of the G-7 nations, a very timely
initiative for which he is to be congratulated.
There are a few positive measures in the budget for which the
Minister of Finance is to be congratulated. For instance, from
the perspective of sustainable development one could highlight
his decision to remove the 20 per cent limit of a donor's income
when donations qualify as ecologically sensitive land. There is a
commitment in the budget to study barriers or disincentives in
the use of recycled materials over virgin materials.
There is a promise to examine the tax system in search of
disincentives to energy efficiency and renewable forms of
energy. Subsidies were cut in the energy sector that encouraged
uneconomic and unsustainable supply development. Much more
needs to be done if we are serious about reducing greenhouse gas
emissions.
This brings me to the end of the list of good news and back to
the question of how to reduce the national debt and the deficit. It
is a necessity on which we all agree.
In the weeks and months preceding the budget several
presentations were made repeatedly that social spending is not
the cause of our economic ills and that our deficit problem,
rather than through cuts in expenditures, ought to be resolved
through increases in revenue by way of closing tax loopholes.
Billions of dollars a year are forgone in revenue because of
existing tax loopholes, including items such as lottery winnings,
business meals and entertainment expenses and other existing
items well
10537
identified in a report by the Department of Finance dated
January 1994.
To his credit, the Minister of Finance closed a couple of
loopholes but the tax system remains unprogressive as a result
of nine years of Conservative government, Conservative budget
making.
It is time for a thorough review of our tax system as it stands
now. This review is made even more urgent and necessary and
relevant by the fact that the social envelope as announced in the
budget is being reduced by $7 billion. Had more tax loopholes
been closed, had the tax system been put under the microscope
to the same extent that the social security system has been, it
would have not been necessary to reduce the social envelope.
We would have funds available to diminish the necessity of
cutting expenditures. We would have funds for the creation of
employment programs for youth desperately waiting for job
opportunities which are now not materializing despite our
vigorous economic growth.
In other words, closing tax loopholes would provide the
government with badly needed revenues to combat
unemployment and to apply less severe cuts. Time does not
permit to comment on the many cuts and I will therefore
comment only on a couple which are particularly painful.
(1710 )
One reduces the social housing budget by $270 million at a
time when in Toronto alone an applicant has to wait over four
years.
Why reduce the protection of our natural resources by one
third, the estimates of the environment department, and allocate
to the department of defence almost 20 times as much, $9
billion? What is more important?
Why reduce international aid at a time when health and
development projects are so badly needed for the stability of
nations most in need?
How can we implement our red book commitment to
sustainable development with a 70 per cent cut in the federal
allocation to the Canadian environment industry, while leaving
the nuclear industry unscathed from any budget cuts?
How can we maintain and strengthen the Canadian identity
when the budget of the Canada Council is cut in half? How can
we promote and sustain artistic talents without the support of the
federal government?
In a way it is too late to talk about the budget, but not too soon
to talk about the next one. For 1996 we will keep on working so
the budget will have a different orientation, an orientation to the
promises made in the red book, an orientation to deal with
unemployment, the protection of the weaker in society and the
social needs of Canadians.
Over the years Canadians have turned to the Liberals at
election time because they trust us as the party that knows how
to strengthen and intertwine social and economic policies. This
principle is as valid today as it will be 20, 40 or 60 years from
now. Hopefully the budget will have the desired effect and we
Liberals will be able to turn our attention to the other half of the
equation, developing strong social and job creation initiatives
and policies in the second half of our mandate for the benefit of
the total Canadian society.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wish I
could say at the beginning that it is pleasure for me to speak on
the budget. I cannot do that. My feeling is one of great
disappointment. The government is still not facing the reality or
the severity of the problem Canada is in today.
The budget has given us minor cuts when major cuts are
needed. It did include some hidden taxes where no tax increases
were justified.
We owe a debt of thanks to the thousands of citizens who
wrote in and attended tax alerts to send the very strong message
to the government that there was no room for tax increases and
that the books had to be balanced and that balance had to be
brought about by cuts or reductions in spending with no new or
increased taxes. We did achieve that to some degree. However,
there were some hidden taxes in the budget.
This was a two stage budget. I will review the first budget and
this budget. In the first budget it was interesting that the
government said: ``Canada has a problem. It is not too serious.
Do not get too excited about it. Take an aspirin and when you get
up in the morning you will feel fine. Do not feel bad. Be happy''.
It introduced a budget that actually aggravated Canada's
condition because our debt over the year of that budget grew
from $490 billion to $550 billion. Canada is in much more
serious difficulty.
We even thought in that first budget we could buy our way to
prosperity. It included the $6 billion infrastructure program.
Canada's problem has worsened. With the second budget the
diagnosis is that Canada is gravely ill. We do have a very serious
problem with the deficit and the debt and it must be attacked.
However, the cure is $650 billion of debt, still overspending by
$25 billion and $50 billion in interest payments. I hardly call
this progress. I hardly call this a cure. Canada is going further
and further into the hole.
(1715)
The government has diagnosed that it understands the gravity
of the situation. The government has moved over to our position.
It has agreed that Canada is gravely ill. The only thing we
disagree on now is the treatment to cure our problem. The
deficit, if we agree, is life threatening. Then why if it is life
threatening to our country would we vote for, or go for a slow,
10538
hopeful, drawn out recovery; we hope we will get the books in
balance.
Suppose someone were in a life threatening situation and the
doctor said: ``We can give you pills for the next five years and
you might recover but the alternative is major surgery and you
can be restored to health very quickly and get on with the healing
process''. Why would he take a chance?
Why would we gamble our future on the uncertainties of the
marketplace, of interest rates? We do not seem to have anything
in this budget to prepare for the eventual downturn in the
economy that will come. It is not a question of if it is going to
come, it is going to come. It is a question of when it is going to
come.
There are some dark clouds on the horizon. Even south of the
border, the situation in the United States could deteriorate and it
would have a grave effect on the economy right here in Canada.
We know that and we are not preparing for that in this budget.
Time is running out. We do not have unlimited time.
Unfortunately, that message is not getting through and has not
been reflected by the government.
I was interested in the remarks of the Secretary of State for
Training and Youth. She spoke about the New Zealand
experience, how New Zealand realized the magnitude of its
problem and did something about it. New Zealand's debt was at
50 per cent of its GDP when it realized its problem. Ours is
currently about 70 or 71 per cent of GDP and we still are not
facing the realities and doing the major surgery which needs to
be done.
The claim in the first budget was that the government did not
have enough time, that it had just taken over. The present
government had been in opposition for eight years. What was
happening in those eight years? What was happening in those
eight years is that those members were adding to the problem in
opposing any attempts to bring the deficit and the debt under
control. I very well recall the UI debate when there was an
attempt to reduce costs. The protest came from the other side at
the attempt to reduce spending.
Here we have a budget. We had no plan to get us to zero or to
balance the books in the first budget. We still do not have a plan
with this budget. There is no fixed date to arrive at what we must
arrive at, which is a balanced budget.
We have lost our credibility with the markets in this budget
because we did not do anything about the MP pension plan. We
had to do something to restore our credibility because it is low.
That would have said very loudly and very clearly to the markets
and to the Canadian people that yes, the government is serious
about the problem and it is showing leadership by example. It
failed to do that. Canadians did not miss that message, nor in
fact did our lenders. Our lenders have spotted the fact that we
were not serious about the problem we face.
There are three ways to get the books in balance. We can raise
taxes. We can hope for growth in the economy. Or we can cut
spending.
Raising taxes, I would suggest, is no longer an option. The
Canadian people have revolted and said that they are taxed to the
limit. Raising taxes at this point becomes counterproductive
because it fuels the underground economy that is there and is
growing.
We can hope for growth in the economy, but we do not control
that. That has been the problem for the last 25 years. We
projected growth in the economy and at the end of the year it was
said: ``Oh gee, it is too bad it was not there. We are deeper in
debt''. We do not control that.
The one thing we do control, the one thing we can do to get our
books in balance is to cut spending. We have absolute control
there and it is where we should be targeting our efforts. This
budget does not do that. It makes some scrapes when indeed it
should be making cuts in spending.
We have had 20 years of raising taxes. Those 20 years of
raising taxes have achieved the exact opposite. The deficit has
grown and the debt has grown. There is absolutely no
justification for any tax increase. It does exactly the opposite to
what it is hoped to achieve. It is a job killer. It kills the economy.
(1720 )
That there can be no pain is not reality. When we have lived
for so many years beyond our means, there has to be some pain.
We cannot escape that. The Canadian people understand and are
ready for that. The problem is many in this place do not
understand that but the Canadian people are ready for it.
We just have to look at the results of the surveys done since
the budget came out. The Canadian people supported the move
the government made but said they were looking for more.
Those same surveys said there should be more cuts and those
cuts should be made now because time is running out. We do not
have unlimited time.
The tough action we have been taking on the east coast with
the fishing problem is interesting. Overfishing is just like
overspending. Fish are limited and dollars are limited. There is a
bottom to the barrel. We are getting tough on fishing but we have
not yet got the message on spending. We still think we can keep
on spending. We can kill an industry or we can kill a country. We
can kill an industry by overfishing; we can kill a country by
overspending.
Moody's fired a shot across our bow and we missed the
message. It fired a shot across our bow just as we did to that
Spanish fishing vessel. The message Moody's shot across our
10539
bow was that 3 per cent of GDP is too low a target and there is no
plan to get to zero. The budget has failed on both counts.
For anybody on the other side to assume that the markets have
bought this budget, the verdict is not yet in. Moody's has not
changed its position. The verdict is still pending on whether the
budget was successful in convincing the money markets that
Canada is a good place to invest.
We shoot the messenger who is giving us good advice: ``You
are in trouble. Get your books in balance or we are not going to
buy your bonds''. As I say, we are still waiting for the
background on that.
There was nothing in this budget for small business. My
background is in small business. That 1.5 cent increase in
gasoline tax is to raise $500 million a year.
In my riding a number of people commute to Toronto. They
will have $250 per year in additional costs just to drive to their
business. It is also going to increase the cost of doing business
for example for those who use gas in delivery services.
It is going to take about $3 million out of the economy of my
riding. There goes the new stove, the education and the new car.
It really was not necessary and it is not productive to creating the
employment we need. There was no justification for any tax
increase.
We are indeed living in the greatest country in the world, but
we are doing it on borrowed dollars and time is running out.
I see we are making an attempt to get Canadians to invest in
Canada by buying bonds and keeping the money in Canada. The
answer to getting Canadians to invest in this country is for the
government to show some responsibility that it understands the
magnitude of the problem and it is going to cut its spending.
Canadians will then stop sending their money out of the country
and will spend and invest it right here.
Canada is in a battle for its survival, make no mistake about it.
I visited Dieppe just a year ago. It was a very moving experience
to see the men who had the courage to go over there and give
their lives. I am suggesting that it is going to take courage right
now to tackle the very serious problem of overspending.
I hear words about compassion, generosity and fairness. What
about responsibility, accountability and fairness to the
taxpayers who have been carrying the burden all these years?
The Canadian taxpayers are demanding some responsibility,
accountability and fairness. We owe it to them and we owe it to
future generations.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
found it interesting that the member would spend so much time
during his speech defending the Brian Mulroney government
saying that somehow the Liberal Party frustrated the prior
government for nine years. He is nodding his head now, but I
should remind him that the government of Brian Mulroney,
which was turfed out, had a majority in both terms and had full
control of its actions. We cannot pass on that blame. The
member is just making rhetoric. In fact the prior Conservative
government got exactly what it deserved.
(1725 )
I listened with interest to the medical analogy the member
used when he talked about cuts, that we have only had scrapes
and not deep cuts. The member tried to somehow imply there
was a tax increase in this budget when he well knows there were
$7 of cuts for every $1 of increased revenue and there were no
increases in personal income tax. It was pure fabrication.
I want to ask the member a question with regard to his strategy
and the response that his own leader gave to this House. His
leader stood in this House and attacked the government for cuts
to social programs. Yet this member is saying that we should
have more cuts than what has been proposed by our government.
How does this member square his position with the position of
his own leader?
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I am very
pleased to respond to the questions from the hon. member.
I will deal first with the fact that the Liberals spent eight years
in opposition and they could not do anything about the fact that
the debt and deficit were increasing. I suggest to the member
that they did nothing but encourage the deficit and debt to
increase. They did not understand the magnitude of the problem
then; they do not understand the magnitude of the problem now.
Nothing has changed.
The Conservative government was turfed out for not
listening. I would suggest that three years down the road this
government will be turfed out because it is still not listening to
the Canadian people.
Cuts of $7 for every $1 in increased revenue. There is no
justification for any revenue increase. There is more than
enough to balance the books in cuts. When there has been
overspending for 20 years we cannot keep saying that we need
more dollars, but a strong case can be made for saying: ``Yes, we
have been going into your pockets deeper and deeper; we are
going to start pulling back now''. Now is the time. If the Liberals
have missed that message, they will go the same way the
Conservatives did in just a few years.
My leader has never said that social programs should not be
touched. The books cannot be balanced without touching the
social programs. That is the reality of the amount of money we
spend in that area. The word is that they have been responsible
for the problem. They have not been responsible for the
problem. However, there have to be cuts in there. The books
absolutely cannot be balanced without doing it.
10540
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my hon.
colleague for Simcoe Centre made reference to the famous tax
rallies which took place across the country. He will know the
most notable one took place in my riding of Ontario. An
estimated 3,500 people came out to protest against any notion of
tax increases.
Of the 3,500 people who attended that meeting not one has
called to tell me this was a bad budget. We have had over 50 calls
telling us it is a budget that hit the mark and that the government
has definitely listened to the voices of Canadians.
What was interesting about that evening was that it
crystallized what these tax alerts were really all about. They
were fronts for the Reform Party. That is very clear in the
presentation I made a couple of weeks ago.
It is more interesting that one of my hon. colleague's cohorts
by the name of Diane Francis in her paper The Financial Post on
the same day that tax rally took place mentioned Morgan Trust, a
famous bank. It does a lot of business in Canada, and has made
some $9.5 million in profits at the expense of the Canadian
economy and has only paid 3 per cent in effective taxes.
The hon. member says we do not need any new taxes in this
country. He applauds the tax alerts that have taken place. But
surely to goodness he is not saying that some people should be
indulging themselves while advocating austerity for the others
as the banks have done.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
is talking about tax fairness. I did not get into the question of tax
fairness. I will agree with him that the current tax system is
unfair and we have to address that.
I do come back to my point that we have a spending problem,
not a revenue problem. The government can go after the
loopholes and tax the rich but it will not come close to balancing
the books. What will balance the books is to get our spending
under control right now. That is something we have full control
over. We need to do it right away. We cannot afford to delay.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
are debating the budgetary policy put forward by this
government that permits it to borrow more money using the
fragile future of our country as collateral.
(1730 )
The Reform Party appreciates the grave financial situation in
which we find ourselves. In fact, it has been our dogged
determination to address the issue of government accountability
in the areas of spending and taxation that have dictated the
course of the government's fiscal agenda.
The Liberal budget took a very tentative first step in the
direction of deficit reduction, but it did not go nearly far enough.
Overall spending increased. Taxes increased. It failed to make
the necessary changes to Canadian social programs. It failed to
identify which programs are essential and which are not. It
failed to explain where and how Canadians will find jobs. The
Liberal budget did not lead by example. Cuts come from the
bottom up it appears. Canadians are asked to tighten their belts
while the Liberal fat-pack have secured their gold-plated
pensions.
There has been much talk about Liberal red book promises.
Let us focus on some of the promises that are made in the
budget.
The Liberals are promising to borrow $29.8 billion this year
because they cannot balance the budget. The Liberals are
promising to add over $100 billion to the national debt in the
next three years. This will drive the federal debt load well
beyond $650 billion by fiscal 1997. This Liberal promise will
jeopardize the long term viability of social programs.
The Minister of Human Resources Development had a
tremendous opportunity to make a positive contribution to
changes in the delivery of social programs. Instead he dropped
the ball and in fact has dropped out. What the Liberals are
offering now is a block transfer of funds to the provinces. This
Liberal approach simply downloads the federal debt, penalizing
the provinces, especially provinces like mine, Alberta, which is
working aggressively toward a balanced budget.
The Liberals promised to increase funding to special interest
groups. To pick one example, the status of women, after we
factor in the new grants transferred from HRD, it still has an
increase in its operating budget of approximately 20 per cent.
How can this be justified when funding to provinces for health
care and education has been reduced? Canadians will not
tolerate such foolish inequity.
The government has not been entirely open about its plans for
balancing the budget. I am going to use the example of the
Canadian heritage ministry to illustrate a wilful lack of
disclosure regarding budget matters. If such dismal
performance exists in one department, in one ministry, does it
exist in others?
The Minister of Canadian Heritage had plans for the future of
the CBC which he did not include in the budget, but which he did
provide to the president of the CBC. Let us look at the Liberals'
promises regarding the CBC. On February 3, 1994 in a letter
from the minister to Mr. Manera, the minister wrote:
The government considers that stable multi-year funding for the CBC is the
most effective way of enabling the CBC to return to a healthy financial position.
I am therefore pleased to confirm that the government is prepared to commit
itself to a plan and to affirm that it does not intend to impose new reductions on
the CBC over the next five years.
10541
However, in the budget the minister announced cuts of $44
million to the CBC. It now appears that the minister plans to cut
of over $350 million to the CBC. When I asked him a question
about the plan in the House he denied the plan, suggesting that
my allegations were pure invention and that Mr. Manera, who
had subsequently resigned, had done so for personal reasons and
that no more cuts were planned. It sounded like an incredible
soap opera to me. That night, in an interview, Mr. Manera stated
that he had resigned because of future cuts to the CBC and not
for personal reasons. Only one of the two men could be telling
the truth.
The next day in the House I presented to the minister a copy of
the secret document, which the minister's officials had given to
Mr. Manera, which outlined three years of cuts to the CBC. This
is how the minister interprets honest and open government.
First, he purposely withheld this information from the budget
figures. Second, he denied the document and the accompanying
cuts even existed. Third, he now admits the document exists but
that it means nothing and that the president of the CBC is
misguided.
This kind of pathetic performance eats away at the integrity of
government. Canadians want to know how their money is being
spent and that it is being spent wisely, based on a responsible
plan for future spending. The Minister of Canadian Heritage has
a different story every time he is asked a question. How can
anyone take him seriously, especially organizations within the
cultural community? His performance has left the CBC
rudderless, without a chairman, without a president, at a time
when it needs leadership the most, at a time when it needs to
make the transition to the private sector.
(1735)
Further, last year the CBC was given a special borrowing
authority for $25 million. It turns out that this borrowing
authority is $25 million into perpetuity. Last year, at the end of
the fiscal year the CBC proved it could not meet its budget and
came back, cap in hand to Parliament, and as stated in the
supplementary estimates it received another $3 million. The
CBC is just one example of gross financial mismanagement in
the minister's portfolio.
The finance minister alleged that the Liberal government met
its financial targets last year. However that can only be Liberal
math, for when we look at the Department of Canadian
Heritage's supplementary estimates we see it is very much in the
red, that none of the targets were met.
Let us look at some of the government organizations which
ran over budget: the Department of Canadian Heritage corporate
services program, $1.1 million over budget; the Canadian
identity program, $1.4 million over budget; the parks program,
$3.5 million over budget; Advisory Council on the Status of
Women, which thankfully is gone, $76,000 over budget; the
CBC, $3 million over budget; the Museum of Nature, $82,000
over budget; the National Archives, $561,000 over budget; the
National Battlefields Commission, $125,000 over budget; the
National Capital Commission, $12 million over budget; the
National Gallery, $187,000 over budget; the Public Service
Commission, $4.5 million over budget; and last, the Office of
the Co-ordinator of the Status of Women, $162,000 over budget.
Thirteen organizations under the control of the Canadian
heritage ministry went over budget. Canadians expect and
deserve more from government. When will the minister finally
take responsibility for the complete disarray and overspending
of his department?
When governments continue to deficit finance they hurt
Canada's future economic health. By failing to balance the
budget, by failing even to announce when the budget will be
balanced, the Liberals have shown they understand little about
fiscal planning.
The Liberal Party continues its tradition of being borrowers of
both money and ideas. The continuing failure to bring in a
single, new, original thought begs the question of whether it will
be able to lead Canada to economic stability within the current
mandate.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Southeast for her
remarks but she left me wondering. In the early part of her
discourse she reported a 20 per cent increase to the status of
women.
I do not know to what organization she refers. I would like
very much if she could elaborate on that, what her information
is, what details she has and what her sources are, if she would
not mind.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
member will refer to the estimates he will see that with the
inclusion of the Department of Human Resources Development,
moneys were brought over from that department.
Approximately $20 million is within the ministry of the status of
women and represents the increase that I suggested.
Further to this, now that we are on the whole approach of the
change to the status of women, it represents a remarkable shift in
the Liberal policy. We are seeing economic pragmatism
overtake social liberalism, which is incredible.
It is a shift into a Conservative-Reform territory which one
would have never anticipated. The Liberals left their liberal
ideology and embraced certainly Conservative ideology. The
Reform Party has influenced dramatically this approach. We
saw it in the budget and we are now seeing it in the downsizing
and restructuring of bureaucratic departments.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member a question. She seemed
to get off on a bit of a tangent thinking that all these government
10542
departments had overspent. If they spend their budget, she
thinks they have overspent. I recognize the trait.
(1740)
However, sometimes there are reallocations of priorities in
the way governments spend their money. That sometimes
happens. In this case, I think the government considered what it
might do and reallocated some priorities and spent more in some
departments that it did in others.
Perhaps the member could answer a question about
overspending. I believe her party ran into a lot of trouble with
overspending. It was unable to organize its finances and I
understand it is running a big deficit.
Does the member not think that the same rules that ought to
apply to government ought to apply to a party? Does the member
not think that the party ought to get its own finances in order
before it criticizes the Government of Canada?
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, that is such a
trivial question, it is not even worthy of a response. We are
certainly in control of our spending.
When we talk about reallocation of priorities, I am going to
address that part of the hon. member's question. It is quite
interesting that when we look at what happened in Alberta with
the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. We are talking
about reallocation of priorities all right.
I have a letter from a small business person in my riding. This
individual wrote talking about Albertans being prepared to
make that kind of sacrifice when it comes to helping with the
deficit reduction process. But when we see companies and I
quote: ``such as ours that compete against companies based in
other provinces on a national and an international basis, this
change of the utilities tax has fundamentally altered the
competitive landscape. Our cost of doing business, simply
because we are located in Alberta, will go up as a result of this
budgetary measure''.
That message for the hon. member across the way speaks
volumes to me about what the government intended to do with
its reallocation of priorities with respect to Alberta.
* * *
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 78(1), I wish to
inform the House that there is an agreement among the
representatives of all three officially recognized parties to the
allocation of time to Bill C-74, an act respecting the supervision
of longshoring and related operations at west coast ports,
described in the following motion.
I therefore move:
That Bill C-74, an act respecting the supervision of longshoring and related
operations at west coast ports, be disposed of at all stages during the present
sitting as follows:
1. Debate at second reading shall be limited to no more than 80 minutes;
2. Upon being read a second time, the bill shall be referred to a committee of the
whole, which shall report the bill after no more than 60 minutes'
consideration;
3. Immediately upon being concurred in at the report stage, the said bill shall be
considered at the third reading stage wherein debate shall be limited to no more
than 40 minutes.
4. At the end of the time periods described in this Order, the Speaker or the
Chair of the committee of the whole, as the case may be, shall interrupt debate
and forthwith put all questions necessary to dispose of the stage then under
consideration.
5. No recorded division may be deferred and, when any recorded division is
requested, the bells shall be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
The Deputy Speaker: As was indicated the motion is not
debatable. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
(1745)
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it. I
declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
The House resumed consideration of the motion that this
House approves in general the budgetary policy of the
government.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will
be sharing my time with the hon. member for Gatineau-La
Lièvre.
Contrary to what we hear flowing back and forth across the
floor, it is an honour for me to participate in the budget debate on
behalf of my constituents in the riding of Hillsborough. I
congratulate the Minister of Finance on such a finely crafted
budget. In my years in this House and in my years in the house of
10543
another jurisdiction I can honestly say that this is one of the best
budgets I have witnessed.
The budget is about commitments made and commitments
kept. During the election we campaigned on a platform of
creating opportunity. We asked Canadians to put their trust in us
and we put our trust in them to get things moving in the right
direction.
We promised to create jobs for Canadians and we have. As has
been talked about many times in the last number of weeks, in the
past year over 400,000 jobs were created across the country. We
promised stable inflation and we have the lowest inflation in the
industrialized world. Our exports are at an all time high and the
level of business confidence in the Canadian economy is at its
highest point since 1979.
The budget moved us further down the road to even more
opportunity in the future. As the Minister of Finance has stated,
the budget breaks the back of the deficit. The government will
reach its deficit target of 3 per cent of GDP by the end of the next
fiscal year. Once we have reached that point the government will
move to reduce the deficit even further. We will accomplish our
goals without punishing the vulnerable.
Some people out there would say and have said that it is just a
Tory budget tied up in red ribbons. Nothing could be further
from the truth. We have gone about the budgeting process
reasonably. Instead of across the board cuts as was the case with
the previous government, we have examined every program and
every activity of the federal government.
Yes, we can do more. The Minister of Finance chose a scalpel
over a meat cleaver in making the cuts. In departments such as in
the Department of Transport where the need for their services
have declined, the minister has made larger cuts. The
commercialization of airports will create new opportunities in
my area for businesses to export their goods and promote better
tourism marketing.
In the Department of Veterans Affairs the minister made
considerably smaller cuts. I know that the Secretary of State for
Veterans was keen in protecting services for veterans across the
country. As a result few jobs will be lost at departmental
headquarters in Charlottetown. This is also something the
people of the riding of Hillsborough really appreciate.
Seasonal workers will be happy to know that there will be no
changes to the unemployment insurance system. There have
been no changes to eligibility criteria or the length of time one
can collect benefits. The Minister of Human Resources
Development will continue to examine the operation of the
program, to streamline the operations, and to find better ways to
help recipients of unemployment insurance.
The budget was also a fine example of sharing the burden of
deficit control. For the second year in a row the government has
refused to increase personal income taxes.
(1750 )
Most Canadians have realized for quite some time that
wealthy Canadians enjoy special treatment come tax time. On
budget day the Minister of Finance moved a long way toward
stopping special treatment by eliminating exemptions for
family trusts.
A couple of years ago the former government extended a tax
holiday called the family trust exemption. Previously some of
the wealthiest families in the country could hide their money
away from the tax person by saying it was for their children and
grandchildren. Because these family trusts have been exempted
for so long it is difficult to estimate how much money is
involved. Estimates have ranged from hundreds of millions to a
couple of billion dollars that the tax people cannot reach. This
special privilege was unacceptable and I am glad to see it gone.
The Minister of Finance placed a special tax on banks that had
record profits in the last year. As well the government will be
leaning on banks to make sure more capital is available to small
and medium size businesses. The government will hold banks
accountable on their performance in helping the Canadian
economy grow and provide more jobs.
In the budget there is an increase in the taxes on large
corporations. This was done because we realized that ordinary
taxpayers were already paying their fair share. The budget
spreads the burden more evenly.
The government has taken the position that we cannot do it
all. Nor should we. It is the job of government to ensure that
there is a level playing field for all Canadians to prosper. It is not
the duty of government to run businesses the private sector can
run better. That is why we are selling, for instance, our
remaining shares in Petro-Canada and selling Canadian
National Railway. On the list being examined for sale is the
Canada Communications Group that has come under fire from
small businesses across the country.
In the future we will be looking not only at what government
does but why government does it. If we cannot find a legitimate
answer then we should stop it. This is about more than smaller
government even though government will be smaller. It is also
about smarter government.
We must remember the Liberals created Canada's social
programs and safety net. While we will be funding those
programs in different ways we will insist that certain national
standards apply. All aspects of the Canada Health Act will
continue to be enforced, especially universality and
accessibility. Of that there can be no doubt in the minds of
Canadians.
10544
We are well on our way to both fiscal sanity and healthy
government. The naysayers and the special interest groups will
try to convince Canadians that we have cut too much. Other
people will say that we have not cut enough and that we should
sacrifice our social programs in the interest of deficit
elimination. Neither opinion reflects the needs and the desires
of Canadians. The budget is about fairness, balance and a sense
of the future.
As I said earlier, there is more we can do. I have mentioned
this at different meetings with the Minister of Finance. There are
more ways to find waste and other excesses in government.
Every stone must be turned to find waste. Public servants out
there are willing to talk about it and to tell us but they must be
protected.
As Liberals we will continue on our course of creating
opportunity for Canadians.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
as I was listening to the member I could not help thinking the
Liberal side of the House must have a special fund set aside for
psychiatric help. I have never heard so much talk about how they
proudly built the programs and now they are equally proud to
dismantle them. I just do not know how they can say that.
I would like the member to address several dilemmas that
must go through the Liberal mind. I would not want to call them
broken promises. How does he reconcile that the budget broke
the workforce adjustment directive when a couple of months
before they promised they would not break it?
(1755)
How can he justify that when the government came into power
it said that it would not sign the GATT without a strengthened
article 11(2)(c) and then it signed it anyway? The government
was not going to sign the NAFTA but it signed it immediately
coming into power. The government promised to eliminate the
GST but that has not been possible. The government said that it
would reform the pension plan of MPs but it just does not have
the guts to do it.
Furthermore, things are coming down the road that Canadians
know about. The Prime Minister muses that perhaps a 1 per cent
or 2 per cent of GDP drop in health care funding is inevitable.
That will amount to $10 billion or $15 billion. That is inevitable.
The member proudly said that there were no changes in UI.
Yet the minister in charge of that program travelled the country
for six months to try to find ways to change it. The member is
proud to say that it has not changed. It has to change.
The last question I would like to ask the hon. member is: With
respect to the pension plan of MPs, will he opt out or not?
Mr. Proud: Mr. Speaker, to the last question first, my answer
is definitely not. I will not opt out. I am not ashamed of the
pension plan. We changed the pension plan as we said we would
do. We even went further than that. I will defend our pension
plan and salary as MPs anywhere in Canada. I am not afraid to do
that.
As far as justifying the workforce adjustment directive, the
government negotiated with the unions and 15 of the 16 unions
agreed to it. It came to a point where it had to be done and we
took the attitude that we would do it. We did it and we are going
to look after it in the most humane way possible.
We built the social programs and we are not dismantling them.
I have said it over and over again. The Prime Minister has said
that the costs of health care can be cut. That is what I said in my
speech. We have to do things smarter and we will do it. We built
the social programs; we will maintain the social programs. The
social programs will be as good in 10 years time as they were 10
years ago as long as we form the government.
I have no qualms about any of the questions the hon. member
asked. We have lived up to our commitments. Commitments
were made and commitments were kept and we will continue to
do so.
I have no problem in defending unemployment insurance. Not
one change has occurred to the unemployment insurance system
as yet. That is what I said. Nothing has changed. Some changes
will be made. The minister has travelled the country.
In my speech I was talking about seasonal workers. Seasonal
workers are not the problem; it is seasonal work. When we reach
the point where such people can work 12 months of the year we
will not need unemployment insurance for them. Until that
happens, with them in agriculture, fishery and tourism we need
to have some kind of compensation for them. I will be the one to
make sure, to the best of my ability, that it remains for them.
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in tabling the budget, our Minister of Finance has certainly
shown a great deal of courage; it is definitely a first step towards
the sound management of public funds.
To have a good understanding of the current economic climate
and take effective action, we must, first, identify the economic
changes experienced in the last 20 years and, second, have a
clear vision of the goals to be achieved and the concrete ways to
achieve them.
We are, of course, facing major economic changes. They have
brought hardships and restrictions to all our fellow citizens.
Their impact on disadvantaged groups is even stronger. Salaries
10545
have gone down. Jobs are getting scarcer and less stable. Access
to social programs is increasingly restricted.
In the next few minutes, I will review the changes and propose
goals and ways to reconcile economic and human
considerations.
(1800)
Successful reconciliation of these considerations depends on
our ability to strike a healthy balance between competition and
individual achievement, on the one hand, and sharing and
co-operation, on the other hand.
In the last 20 years, our economy has been shaken by three
major changes: the global economic slowdown which started in
1973; two major anti-inflationary recessions in 1981 and 1990;
and, in the last decade, the economic system's gradual rejection
of people with little education.
Before 1973, our average standard of living rose by 40 per
cent every decade. All classes of society were reaping the fruits
of this growth. Since then, the rate of economic development has
barely exceeded 15 per cent per decade. Several groups,
including less qualified workers, have even seen their standard
of living drop in absolute terms. This long term economic
slowdown is common to all industrialized countries.
In the wake of the great depression and the second world war,
all countries enjoyed enormous catch-up growth potential based
on delayed technological development, cheap natural resources
and an agricultural workforce ready to move to the cities. It took
us a quarter of a century to use up this potential. Since then, all
countries from Finland to Canada and from Italy to Australia
have been having a hard time. Nothing is easy any more.
We managed for a while to circumvent the new economic
constraints. The declining birthrate, the generalization of
female labour, the high prices obtained from the sale of our
natural resources until 1981, the debt increase in the 1980s
allowed us to constantly defer until later the painful adjustment
in our material expectations. The strong decline in consumption
during the current recession underlines our belated awareness
that money no longer grows on trees. Members of the middle
class have finally started to tighten their belts.
But people are very nervous. Economic stagnation has
resulted in both an increase in the need for social protection and
a narrowing of the tax base financing our social safety net.
Governments have managed to partly resolve this contradiction
by raising taxes, which fuels the anger of taxpayers, already
aroused by the state of the economy. This situation threatens our
income security system, which is already starting to erode.
Sharing does not come as easily when there is no growth.
Most industrialized countries started off the 1980s with an
inflation rate of 12 per cent and were blamed for it. At the
instigation of central banks, governments then subjected their
economies to two anti-inflationary recessions. In 1981, Canada
suffered the most severe recession in the industrialized world
and inflation was brought down from 12 per cent to five per cent.
Later on, starting in 1988, the Government of Canada and the
Bank of Canada undertook to finish the job and force the rate of
inflation further down, from five to two per cent. This target was
just met in 1992.
(1805)
Once again, Canada stood out because, once again, it put itself
through the worst recession in the industrialized world.
These two recessions have led to a massive underutilization of
our human and material resources in the past few decades. The
resulting loss of income for Quebec is already to the tune of
$100 billion. Obviously, this loss is on top of the general
economic slowdown I mentioned earlier.
The $100 billion swallowed up by the two recessions
represents an astronomical and senseless waste. It is cruel,
considering the hardship and countless psychological, family
and social problems it caused. It is also fundamentally unfair. In
addition, this loss of $100 billion so far is not distributed equally
amongst all people. Small businesses and low income earners
are being hit absolutely disproportionately. Yet, they are not
responsible, in the first place for causing the inflation we are
now trying to curb.
Nowhere is growing chronic unemployment more obvious
than among workers of all ages who did not finish high school.
For the past decade, people in this category have slowly been
sinking deeper and deeper. They are offered less and less money
for jobs that are fewer and fewer and increasingly unstable; the
rate of unemployment is increasingly higher than average. They
have started to leave the labour force massively, generally
ending up on the CSST or welfare rolls.
One third of Quebecers between the ages of 20 and 64, three
times as many as in Germany or Japan, do not have a high school
diploma. Barely one third of them have jobs. They are in a
desperate situation. Compared to this group, the Gaspesian
Peninsula is a real employment paradise. School may get you
nowhere, as the saying has it, but it sure seems that ignorance
does not get you much further.
Workers with little education were affected by the long term
economic slowdown, like everyone else, and by the 1981 and
1990 recessions, which have hit very hard, but they also seem to
be gradually pushed aside.
We have in Canada great economists and great minds. In
Quebec, we have an economist of nationwide and even
worldwide reputation. I have had the pleasure of meeting him on
a
10546
number of occasions and hearing him testify here, before the
finance committee. I am referring to Pierre Fortin, from the
Université du Québec in Montreal.
Mr. Fortin has shown a great deal of common sense in his
approach to the economic situation. He came up with a
three-part social and economic program. That is, first, given the
vulnerability of people who never graduated from high school
on the job market, he said that we need to create jobs as quickly
as possible mostly for their benefit, second, to protect what has
already been acquired, and third, to undertake a second
educational revolution.
I will now comment briefly on these points. It is very clear
that large scale job creation will obviously reduce the amounts
paid out in unemployment insurance benefits, social assistance
and other benefits. It is also very clear that, by creating jobs, the
federal government will generate more revenue for deficit
reduction.
Mr. Fortin does not suggest that the government increase
spending but rather that it exert pressure to maintain our interest
rates under or around the five per cent mark or thereabouts, like
our American neighbours.
(1810)
If interest rates were at five per cent, many small and medium
size businesses would have access to the funds needed to create
enough jobs to put all of the unemployed back to work. I think
that makes eminent sense.
Secondly, we clearly do not want to be irresponsible and to
spark another increase in inflation. On the contrary, job creation
and increased profits will hedge against the likelihood of
inflation becoming a problem. The danger of inflation flaring up
over the next three to four months is very minimal.
Thirdly, we must undertake a second educational revolution.
Obviously, people between the ages of 20 and 64 who do not
have a high school diploma need vocational training. We are not
talking about university diplomas, we are talking about training
spread over one or two years. That essentially is my conclusion.
I would like to say to my colleagues that there are some good
ideas out there and that it is high time that we in the House of
Commons take heed of them.
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to
the member for Gatineau-La Lièvre. He made a nice speech,
but forgot to mention that the Liberals were in office for a long
time and that the deficit started growing back then.
I am somewhat sceptical when I hear that restoring
confidence in the economy will result in the money markets
lowering interest rates which, in turn, will stimulate job
creation. I am from the Gaspé Peninsula and I can tell you that
fringe areas need catalysts. Unfortunately, that budget does not
include any job creating initiatives. There is no catalyst to help
people improve their lot.
The government's proposed approach, which is to let the
private sector act freely, presupposes that it expects the private
sector to create jobs for people with low levels of education.
However, these jobs will not be well-paid. I would like to know
how the regions will be mobilized. All the nice rhetoric heard in
this House is fine, but the regions expect positive measures and
guidelines. Instead of that, the government is cutting the
financial support available through the Federal Office of
Regional Development. Where is the support? Instead of
providing support, the government is withdrawing it.
Mr. Assad: Mr. Speaker, I will first answer the hon. member's
second question. I said, as did Mr. Fortin to the Standing
Committee on Finance, that we have to exert pressure to lower
interest rates.
Increasing the deficit will not solve the problem: it will only
postpone it and make it worse. We have to find a way to lower
interest rates, so that small and medium size businesses can get
the money they need to expand. Let us not forget that there is a
production capacity in our country.
The hon. member mentioned that the deficit started under the
Liberals. That is true. However, when the Liberals left in 1984,
the deficit stood at $160 billion, whereas when they came back
last year, it had grown to $460 billion. Between 1984 and 1994,
the deficit grew by 250 per cent, in spite of unprecedented levels
of revenues.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.15 p.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 84(6), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings
and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Ways
and Means Motion No. 20.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
10547
(Division No. 167)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bellemare
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
DeVillers
Dingwall
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Hickey
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Karygiannis
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Maheu
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchi
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunziata
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rock
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Shepherd
Simmons
Skoke
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
Young
Zed-142
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Benoit
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
de Jong
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Epp
Fillion
Forseth
Frazer
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Grubel
Guay
Hanger
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Jacob
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Lefebvre
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Morrison
Ménard
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
St-Laurent
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)-81
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Chan
Comuzzi
Daviault
Gaffney
Godfrey
Guimond
Harvard
Hubbard
Keyes
Lalonde
Landry
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
MacLaren
McWhinney
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Patry
Rideout
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Terrana
(1845 )
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the the motion adopted.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think you would would find
unanimous consent to deal with item No. 25 under Ways and
Means Proceedings on today's Order Paper.
10548
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
-Quebec, Lib.) moved that a Ways and Means motion relating
to certain measures announced in the February 1995 budget, laid
upon the table on Tuesday, March 14, be concurred in.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion agreed to on
division.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-74, an act respecting the supervision of longshoring
and related operations at west coast ports, be read the second
time and, pursuant to order adopted earlier this day, referred to
committee of the whole.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to introduce
the West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995, which provides for
the supervision of longshoring and related operations at ports on
the west coast of Canada. The labour dispute that led to the
tabling of this bill is between the Waterfront Foremen
Employers' Association and local 514 of the ship and dock
foremen of the International Longshoremen's and
Warehousemen's Union.
The association has a membership of 16 companies that
employ members of the union in longshoring operations in
British Columbia. The union has about 500 members and
represents all unionized foremen employed in freight handling
operations in British Columbia. The collective agreement
between the parties expired on December 31, 1992, and the
labour dispute was caused by the inability of the parties to renew
the agreement.
After direct talks between the parties broke off, a conciliator
from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service was
appointed on August 5, 1993 to help the parties settle their
differences. The conciliator met the parties during the period
from September 1993 to March 1994, and as a result the parties
resumed negotiations in March. Conciliation sessions started
again in April 1994 and went on until August last year. On
October 18, 1994, the parties were informed of the appointment
of Mark Thompson as conciliation commissioner in this labour
dispute.
On February 10, 1995, after a series of meetings which took
place over a period of four months, the conciliation
commissioner transmitted his report to the parties. The
employer indicated that, on the whole, he agreed with what the
report contained. The union, however, rejected the report as a
basis for a settlement. Following a meeting of both parties on
March 10, union members went on strike on March 13.
However, they indicated they were willing to allow the loading
of grain shipments. The work stoppage occurred after the
employer informed the union that it intended to impose the
recommendations contained in the conciliation commissioner's
report as of March 20, 1995.
(1850)
Following the walk-out by the union members, the employer
imposed a lock-out in all ports on the west coast, at 1 a.m. on
March 15, thus halting the movement of all goods, including
grain.
This report contains specific recommendations forming a
solid base for settling these negotiations, but it also sheds light
on the problem colouring labour-management relations in the
port of Vancouver for years.
In his report, Mr. Thompson indicates that repeated
intervention by senior government officials in labour disputes in
the port of Vancouver have made the parties less interested in
reaching an agreement on their own. The commissioner also
points out that since Parliament has not allowed work stoppages
in the port of Vancouver to continue for more than a few days,
the parties are tempted to hold off any agreement until an act is
passed or some other form of intervention taken. Unfortunately,
this is also what is happening in the present dispute.
For years, the port of Vancouver has been dealing with
disputes involving various occupational groups, including
longshoremen, foremen, grain handlers and other workers. And
all of us in this House know we have had to intervene.
Unfortunately, I see the current situation requiring exactly the
same type of measure.
This subject would not have been my choice for my maiden
speech in the House of Commons, but I have never backed away
from problems, and I am not going to start now. My colleagues
on both sides of the House are well aware that grain traffic is
moving faster than ever before in the ports of Vancouver and
Prince Rupert. I congratulate the Minister of Agriculture and the
Minister of Transport on developing and implementing changes
that have significantly improved the efficiency of the grain
transportation network in the west.
10549
In the first half of the current crop year, that is, from August
1994 to January 1995, grain exports through west coast ports
increased by 45.6 per cent. Any prolonged work stoppage now
could have a disastrous effect on the agricultural economy of the
west, at a time when grain elevators are operating at full
capacity. Given the intense competition Canadian grain
producers face in international markets and the pressing need to
maintain Canada's reputation with its major trading partners, it
is essential that this bill be passed.
Although I have primarily spoken about the movement of
grain in west coast ports, my colleagues know very well that
Vancouver is an important international port that receives a wide
variety of bulk and containerized cargo, whose transportation
depends on the presence of a stable and efficient workforce in
the port. The rapid passage of the bill I have tabled is necessary
to maintain the viability of this activity.
As I have already said, the parties have already had the benefit
in their negotiations of all the assistance possible from impartial
third parties, measures which led to the report by the
conciliation commissioner, Mr. Thompson.
In his report, the commissioner indicated that ``there is a
climate of hostility between the parties, at least as far as the
Association and the Union are concerned''. He even added that
``the members of the Association believe that the Union is
refusing to adapt to the evolution of economic conditions in the
industry, while the Union, for its part, is of the opinion that the
employer is attempting to weaken its position in the collective
agreement, particularly with respect to job opportunities''.
Mr. Thompson summarized the situation as follows: ``There
is nothing to indicate that the parties wish or are capable of
working together creatively to resolve their problems''. Even
though he has presented a rather sombre picture of negotiations
to date, I should add that the conciliation commissioner pointed
out that the parties demonstrated excellent co-operation in their
dealings with him, and I take this opportunity to congratulate
him on his detailed and thorough report on this situation.
(1855)
In his report, the commissioner made specific
recommendations on all matters remaining in dispute, and as
hon. members can see, I have no hesitation in using these
recommendations to establish the dispute settlement
mechanism described in the bill before the House today.
Many points on which the parties agreed in the course of the
negotiations were directly inspired by the existing collective
agreement between the parties for persons employed in
longshoring on the west coast. The conciliation commissioner
made his recommendations so as to guarantee that the port of
Vancouver remains competitive with other ports on the Pacific
coast and with types of transportation elsewhere on the
continent. He also avoided any major changes in the structure of
the collective agreement which he found was, on the whole,
satisfactory.
In his comments, the commissioner indicated that both parties
would probably receive the report with mixed feelings but felt
that it offered a firm basis for a settlement. It was this conviction
which inspired the bill before the House today.
The West Coast Ports Operations Act, 1995, provides for the
immediate resumption of supervision of longshoring and related
operations at ports on the west coast of Canada and for the
appointment of a mediator-arbitrator to resolve matters
remaining in dispute between the parties. As soon as this act
comes into force, the employers will be required to continue or
immediately resume, as the case may be, supervision of
longshoring and related operations at all ports; employees will
be obliged to continue or immediately resume, as the case may
be, their employment when requested to do so. The term of the
collective agreement is extended to include the period
beginning on January 1, 1993 and ending on the date fixed by the
mediator-arbitrator, which may not be earlier than December
31, 1996. The act provides that as soon as he is appointed, the
mediator-arbitrator shall endeavour to mediate the matters
remaining in dispute and to bring about agreement between the
parties on those matters.
If he is unable to bring about agreement on a matter, the
mediator-arbitrator will hear the parties on the matter and
arbitrate the matter after taking cognizance of the report of the
conciliation commissioner. All costs incurred in the
appointment of the mediator-arbitrator and the exercise of his
duties shall be paid equally by the parties. In addition, a series of
fines is provided for, should the parties contravene the
provisions of the act.
Finally, this act shall come into force on the expiration of the
twelfth hour after the royal sanction, which will allow the
parties enough time to bring employees back to work and give
sufficient time for the resumption of the employer's operations.
The passing of this act will permit the resolution of the
present dispute, but, in my opinion, we must find long term
solutions to the problems that have been the source of labour
disputes in Canadian ports for years. My colleagues are aware
that an in-depth review of Part I of the Canada Labour Code is
currently underway under the authority of the assistant deputy
minister of the Department of Human Resources Development.
However, in the case of the present labour dispute, this is the
second time in a little over a year that Parliament has had to
intervene in a dispute involving the west coast ports. This would
seem to indicate that there is a basic problem in the structure of
collective bargaining in B.C. ports.
10550
(1900)
For this reason, I intend to strike a board of inquiry on labour
relations, whose mandate will be to report on the ways that
parties involved in handling cargo in ports can avoid closing
down ports in the future when they are in the process of
resolving their labour conflicts, because closure compromises
our competitiveness on the world market and our reputation as a
trustworthy exporter, and forces Parliament to take rapid action.
Mr. Speaker, clearly, we must avoid a repeat of this situation
in the years to come. And I have told my colleagues that I am
personally committed to finding a long-term solution to these
labour-relation problems which have become endemic to west
coast ports. That is why I would like to ask the members of this
House to support the bill before us-to ensure that we will be
able to move goods destined for export markets through west
coast ports in the near future as we did before.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the official opposition agreed to today's emergency
debate on this labour relations problem on the West Coast.
However, we still have questions and-in light of the
government's proposals-we will oppose the bill as drafted. We
will propose a number of amendments in committee of the
whole and if these amendments are approved by the
government, we would then vote in favour of the bill.
We have questions because this bill comes after a general
strike was called at midnight last night. So a special bill was
introduced less than 15 hours after the strike started. Logically,
this amounts to calling into question the right to strike. Let us
say so clearly. How can we talk about the right to strike when
special back-to-work legislation is introduced after 15 hours?
In fact, the potential right to strike cannot be exercised if a
special bill is tabled less than 24 hours after a strike is called.
Last year, it was the same problem at the same port but with a
different group, the dockers. We then agreed that the thing to do
was to launch a debate on the issue right away and put in place
settlement mechanisms. In this regard, I commend the industrial
inquiry commission initiative. However, last year, the Minister
of Human Resources Development told us that, in actual fact,
arbitration was futile, that we had to move on to the last offer
mechanism-the last union proposal and the last offer from
management.
This year, we are rediscovering the advantages of arbitration.
I think that this shows a kind of inconsistency. Let me say
clearly that I favour neither approach. Nonetheless, I fail to see
how you could be against arbitration last year and, this year,
consider arbitration to resolve the dispute at the very same
place, the same port, with more or less the same players.
It seems to me that inasmuch as the right to strike is
recognized, it is important to give both sides time to bargain not
only before action is taken, but also while pressure is being
exercised. Provided of course that negotiations can take place in
acceptable and modern conditions.
This brings me to the whole issue of the anti-strikebreaking
legislation. Such an act exists in Quebec. In fact, it was enacted
as early as 1977 if I am not mistaken. Ontario and British
Columbia have since followed suit. This means that 70 per cent
of the people of Canada are governed by such legislation.
We are finding out that strikes tend to last much longer in
areas under federal authority than in Quebec, Ontario and
British Columbia, where anti-strikebreaking legislation is in
force. I remember mail strikes. These were extremely violent
strikes, but strikes are becoming much less violent in provinces
with anti-strikebreaking legislation, and I think that the hon.
minister is aware of this.
In Quebec, the CPQ has made no demands denouncing the
anti-strikebreaking legislation in recent years.
(1905)
It used to at first, but I think that based on the results, the
benefits of such legislation, the council realized that it made for
better labour relations, as negotiations were more meaningful in
a way, disputes were fewer and more easily resolved, all because
modern legislation was in place.
When I hear that action is urgently required, I agree. But, as I
said earlier, we plan to move amendments in committee of the
whole. I wonder why it is not considered equally urgent to act to
put an end to the strike at Ogilvie Flour in Montreal. That stike
has not been going on for 15 hours, but nearly a year. One year,
and no anti-scab legislation. Yet, if there is a company which
does not care about its workers, it is Ogilvie.
Let me give you some examples. The negotiations were
conducted in English. The employer refused to negotiate in
French in Quebec. This is illegal under the Quebec Labour Code.
Indeed, since law 101 and the various related provisions were
passed, negotiations must be conducted in French.
The employer, AND, a company whose board of directors
includes former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, refused to
negotiate in French. How nice. So, no anti-scab legislation in
the case of Ogilvie. Yet, it seems to me that there is some
urgency to that conflict which, as I said, did not start 15 hours
10551
ago, but several months back. There is an urgency when profits
or the economy are affected-and I agree that there are workers
and farmers who are hurt by that strike-and we have to take
action. However, when it comes to the economic well-being of
workers, their families, their salaries and their health, there is no
urgency. This looks like a double standard to me.
You may remember that the Bloc Quebecois tabled an
anti-scab bill, back in 1990. The Liberals, who were then sitting
on this side, supported that legislation. The Minister of Human
Resources Development made passionate speeches, saying that
the time had come to pass such legislation. Nothing has been
done since. Yet, the government could have taken action,
especially in light of the fact that the strike at Ogilvie's has been
going on for more than 15 hours. But there is no urgency in that
case.
However, -and I know that the federal Department of Labour
is considering anti-scab legislation-documents from that
department suggest that a majority vote of 60 per cent should
apply. For the sake of democracy-and I know that a majority
vote of 50 per cent plus one in the Quebec referendum is being
challenged, but this is becoming a habit with the
Liberals-when a strike vote is conducted under a collective
agreement, it should also be subject to the 60 per cent rule. The
same bill includes other provisions-even though we were told
today that these were only ideas-but I wonder why these ideas
are included in a departmental discussion paper.
That document was circulated so as to inform and consult both
the employers and the unions, and that is fine. It obviously
circulated, because we had it. So, in this document, the door is
opened to having replacement workers who are not members of
the bargaining unit on strike, but who could belong to a
bargaining unit other than the one on strike but with the same
company, or who could be non-unionized workers.
Seen one way, this is not anti-strikebreaker legislation, but
rather legislation that, in fact, allows for strikebreakers. This is
very different from legislation in Ontario, British Columbia or
Quebec, which stipulates clearly that only managers, who were
managers before the dispute began, may work. So, I hope that if
indeed there is, at some point, an anti-strikebreaker bill here,
that this notion of strikebreakers would not be made legal
because management would be using people from the same
company, but from another unit, or non-unionized workers as
replacements for unionized workers.
This is nothing more than a legal façade to avoid facing
reality. As the minister just told us she was ready to face reality,
I imagine she will discover the subterfuge of certain of her
deputy ministers, who are circulating documents, which do not
in any way, shape or form, resolve the issue of the presence of
strikebreakers. I think that anti-strikebreaking legislation
would allow us to humanize our labour relations, a far cry from
what is happening in certain American states, for example,
where shots are fired during disputes, and also far removed from
what once happened in Quebec and in other Canadian provinces.
(1910)
I remember the Robin Hood strike, in 1977, or the postal
workers' strike, where there was a lot of violence. At that time,
scabs were even paid, with their hotel rooms and all, with
federal funds. It was Canada Post that was paying their salaries,
their food, and perhaps other things, I am not sure, but at least
these things. And the Liberals, who were then in the official
opposition, were denouncing that.
Since we are reviewing the Labour Code, I would also like to
point this out. We are currently talking about a particular
dispute, but it is part of a much greater issue. Hence the need to
hold a commission of inquiry on labour relations practices in the
port of Vancouver. But I know that this issue is only a part of a
broader one which opens the door to a review of the code.
So, I hope that this will also open the door to giving Quebec
female workers the same rights, whether they are under the
federal code or the provincial code. I am alluding here to the
preventative withdrawal of pregnant women. If you are a woman
working in the communication or banking sector, depending on
the federal system under which you work, you do not have the
right to preventative withdrawal under the same conditions as a
woman working in Quebec. When there were only eight
members of the Bloc Quebecois in the House, we had proposed
such an amendment and the Liberals had supported it. So, I hope
that they will remember that when they review the code in its
entirety.
When we talk about this strike in Vancouver, we must also
consider that there are other strikes going on. There is one in the
railways and also one in the port of Montreal. It would be
interesting if, before we resort to a special legislation to force
employees back to work in the port of Montreal, we would
choose the mediation process and name a mediator who would
bring parties together, since they are already close to a
settlement. They are negotiating in Montreal, not any more
seriously than in Vancouver, but I think the chances of settling
the dispute are better there than in Vancouver.
I have participated in long negotiations and I know that it is
often better not to go into a useless mediation right at the
beginning of a conflict and do nothing afterwards. But when you
are close to a settlement, when you can see that only a few
elements still need to be ironed out, mediation can be a very
important tool. I hope that, in the case of the port of Montreal,
the minister will choose this solution and not a special
legislation.
In conclusion, I would like to announce that we will be voting
against this bill at the second reading stage, because we feel it
does not really allow for negotiations between the parties. I
personally think that we are dealing with this situation very
seriously, all the more so since we are working with the
commission, and therefore I think we should be able to go into
mediation without arbitration. First we should proceed only
through mediation and let the parties negotiate and the mediator
10552
should not become an arbitrator. How can the parties trust
anyone who will make suggestions if they know that, in case of
disagreement between them, that person will turn the
suggestions into obligations?
I think that instead of setting conditions, the mediator could
report to the minister, who could in turn report to the Human
Resources Committee-since there is no Labour Committee yet,
but we will remedy that-or even to this House in order to
discuss the issue with all members and parties concerned, rather
than immediately determining the conditions after fifteen hours
of strike, because that will be the case.
For those who are familiar with labour relations, it is the same
thing as for tripartite tribunals. One union representative, one
employer representative and a so-called neutral arbitrator. As
we know, the decision is always two against one. The arbitrator
takes sides. Expenses can be reduced by naming only one
instead of three since the result of the vote is already known,
even if we do not know at the outset which party the arbitrator
will support.
Therefore, the Official opposition will vote against the bill at
second reading and we will introduce a series of amendments in
committee of the Whole House, hoping that the government will
accept them and allow this House, as unanimously as possible,
to encourage labour relations that are as fair, acceptable, normal
and modern as possible in the port of Vancouver.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The agreement was that
there could be twenty minutes for comments. Is there unanimous
consent?
We now resume the debate with the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.
(1915)
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, I have been a member of this House for 15 or 16
months now, and I would not have thought that we would have to
pass two special pieces of legislation for the same port in such a
short time. In little over a year, this is the second time we see
that there is something wrong in this work environment.
If I remember correctly, last year the minister in charge, the
Minister of Human Resources Development, possibly because
of the scope of his duties or maybe because known facts were not
taken into account, did not follow up on that special legislation
and, now, we have to pass back to work legislation for another
group of workers.
Not only did we not learn anything from last year's
experience, but we do not seem to be learning very much from
the present situation either. I was watching the news on TV,
tonight, and I noticed that the transportation sector is in turmoil
over labour relations. There are potential labour disputes in the
railway industry and in ports all over Canada. The message this
legislation sends will be important for future negotiations in
these sectors.
If the parties are not convinced of the importance of agreeing
among themselves, if we give them the habit of waiting for a
third party to settle their problems for them, we create the type
of work relations which now prevail in the port of Vancouver. I
think that an imposed solution is unacceptable and never brings
about suitable results. Therefore, it is important that we send the
message to other economic sectors that parties must pursue
negotiations as far as the process allows.
The official opposition felt that a debate on this legislation
was urgently needed, but I think citizens have a right to know
that this urgency is not the result of this one incident. It is the
result of the government's lack of foresight, as it has known
about the problems at the port of Vancouver for some time now.
The government was aware of problems in this area but did
nothing about them. And now, it steps in and says to the people
involved, as if they were children, that because they could not
work things out among themselves that it is going to have to do it
for them. This only perpetuates the idea that they do not have to
negotiate with each other to find durable and constructive ways
to improve their working climate.
The minister's announcement that an investigating committee
will be struck is interesting, but we must ensure that the parties
will participate and will find solutions. I think that even if we
agree that a mediator must be named and that people must be
legislated back to work, the current legislation should allow
negotiations to carry on and should not impose an outside
solution which, at any rate, will never satisfy anyone.
I think that we will know we have succeeded in transforming
labour relations at the port of Vancouver when a collective
agreement is signed without third-party intervention and when
all of the parties concerned have the impression that they signed
an agreement which is to their advantage.
When both parties are ready to be reasonable, they will realize
that working conditions are better during a period covered by a
collective agreement when it is signed and accepted by all
parties involved. This is how we can break the vicious cycle that
labour relations at the port of Vancouver have been stuck in.
Hopefully, this will be the last time during this Parliament
that we will have to bring in special legislation, because it is
always a sign that the system is ineffective.
10553
(1920)
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
will be sharing my time with the member for Wild Rose.
For 11 days in 1994 shipping through the B.C. ports was
paralyzed. The estimates of the losses to the Canadian grain
industry ran in the hundreds of millions of dollars. We are
talking about grain in that instance. There were also
manufacturers who lost out in the strike in 1994.
What did that strike cost them? It is difficult to measure that.
Even more difficult to measure is the damage to our reputation
as a reliable shipper. These were not the only losers in that
strike. I believe everybody in a strike or a lockout situation is
ultimately a loser. The workers on strike will probably never be
able to make up for the wages they lost during that time.
It is absolutely ludicrous that such losses should be allowed to
occur over and over again. In doing a little research, I came upon
some bills that were very similar in nature. Some of them would
think we could dust off and they would be suitable for today.
They are dated 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1989 right up to 1994
when we had to consider just such legislation in order to get the
port of Vancouver working again. Déjà vu, here we are again.
Sixty per cent of Canada's grain exports have been held in
limbo. When one ties up that system, it has a domino effect. It
backs up right to the farmers' gates. Nobody in a strike situation
is in a winning position.
My friend from Rivière-du-Loup pointed out that perhaps
because this has happened so often, the collective bargaining
process is failing. I could not agree with him more.
Our minister has assured the House she would like to put
something in place to ensure this does not happen again. I hear
my friend from Rivière-du-Loup saying the same thing. He
would like to make sure we do not have to go through this
painful exercise, that perhaps when labour and management
realize it is only a matter of time before the government steps in
they maybe are not bargaining as closely and as honestly as they
should.
I would be delighted if the Minister of Labour would look
closely at what the Reform Party has put forward. My colleague
from Lethbridge has put forward Bill C-262, a final arbitration
bill, which we hope would never have to be used. Just because it
is there does not mean that it is something we are going to beat
up either management or union with and make them settle.
It is intended so both management and union know that if they
cannot come to an agreement, they had better bargain hard and
fast or this could be implemented.
We also have to look at what kind of a situation we would be in
if the strike and lockout situation at the port of Vancouver were
settled tomorrow. That contract is only good until December 31,
1995.
Then negotiations will start all over again. Perhaps next year
at this time we would be back in the House considering back to
work legislation again. Today the Minister of Labour announced
the establishment of a commission to study labour relations.
(1925 )
I invite the Minister of Labour to read through our bill, to
study our bill and to see the merit in it. If the minister is
philosophically opposed to supporting a motion simply because
it came from the Reform Party, then fine. Defeat that motion, but
bring in another one that is very similar and will accomplish the
same thing.
In speaking to the port authority today in Vancouver, it was
estimated that in the container business alone, some 7,000
containers at about an average income of $1000 per container
for handling has been lost in the little time this strike has been
going on. This adds up to $7 million in lost revenue, not to say
anything about the damage done to our reputation as a reliable
supplier and what it has done to labour management relations.
A chain reaction takes place whenever we have a situation of
this type. We are in a situation in which some 405 people have
managed to bring the entire west coast shipping to a halt. It
completely grinds to a stop from the port right back to the gate of
the farmers and the manufacturers.
Is it not odd that these people at the port have never been
designated as an essential service until they go on strike or are
locked out? Suddenly they are essential. The fact we have to
bring in legislation to put them back to work makes them
essential in my books.
Bill C-262 would not only be a very useful tool to labour and
management, it would not only apply to the port of Vancouver,
but also to the port of Montreal where we have a similar
situation taking place.
The port of Montreal is a very important east coast facility
and we should be considering some intervention in that area. We
have been reading in the paper where the port of authority there
expects the government to take action, thereby strengthening
our case that Bill C-262 would be required reading for the
Minister of Labour.
We are not trying to point the finger at anyone in particular. It
takes two organizations to come up with a conflict and I am sure
there are two sides to this conflict.
Our final offer arbitration bill would be a very useful tool, one
probably welcomed by both business and labour and I encourage
the House to support that bill.
10554
The Reform Party will be supporting back to work legislation.
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
thank my colleague for his fine words. I am pleased to support
this move tonight.
A number of things have crossed my mind since this affair
began. I cannot help but remember the first two or three things
that came to my understanding. We had some young families in
Wild Rose that work for small businesses, exporters, mainly hay
processors, that were laid off a week ago because the signs were
coming that things were going wrong.
These people were the ones making $9 or $10 an hour. They do
not make car payments and they do not make house payments
because they cannot do that on $9 or $10 an hour. They have
young children and are trying to survive. It is a shame that
hundreds of these individuals are trying to get into the work
market, trying to make a go of things, trying to stay off of
welfare and doing all the right things. Suddenly there is a move
about somewhere and they are being held hostage. They cannot
go to work. There is nothing to do because a few people
somewhere are stopping the work or not allowing the procedure
to take place.
(1930)
There is a discouraging part about it. I stood in this place less
than 24 hours ago and asked if the House would consider giving
unanimous consent to debate legislation requiring the workers
to go back to work. The disappointing part was that right away
we heard ``no, no way'' from the other side of the House. Good
grief, here we are one night later doing exactly what I asked to
do last night.
What was so unusual about getting going last night? Is it a bad
deal that it happened to come from this side of the House? Did
we have to wait another few hours to make sure it came from that
side of the House?
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): It has to be a Liberal
idea.
Mr. Thompson: It has to be a Liberal idea; it is no good
otherwise. That is a shame. What did we hear? We heard: ``No
way'', but here we are tonight debating something we all agree
on.
There was noise from the opposition as soon as I mentioned
that we should debate legislation to get these people back to
work. What else did I hear? I heard irresponsible from Bloc
members. I will tell them what is irresponsible. It is
irresponsible when 295 individuals sitting in the House
continually let these kinds of things go on year after year.
I admire and commend the Minister of Labour for her move.
She said tonight that we must get something in place to make
certain these kinds of things do not happen again. It is a good
idea, even if it did come from the Liberal side. It is too bad they
did not feel the same way last night. We could have got going a
lot sooner, or maybe last year instead of letting it go for 12 days.
We are just asking people to wake up.
A small business in my riding, Transfeeder, worked very hard
this year to re-establish the business it lost last year. It does not
employ a great number of people but it is doing its very best to
help. It is part of a big picture. Last year it lost $500,000 in sales
during a 12-day strike. Since then it has tried to calm the fears of
Japanese businessmen and managed to get new orders.
It is finally getting back on its feet and suddenly everything is
in jeopardy because of a stoppage. This small business is really
striving. Japanese businessmen are asking why Canada is
allowing the stoppage to happen. They do not understand.
Mr. Blair Wright, owner of that business in Olds, Alberta,
could only answer like all Canadians by saying that he did not
know. Is it not a shame when we in the House of Commons
receive calls from our constituents saying that they have to lay
people off, things are falling apart and perishable goods are
perishing? They are being held hostage. Farmers cannot move
their grain. Everything is looking grim. Yet we in the House hear
nothing more than silly comments like irresponsible or no way
when we try to do something about it.
It is time we woke up, started to get more serious and change
our attitudes in this place. Perhaps that would inspire some
attitudes all over the country that might make a difference and
keep the economy going the way we want to see it go.
Unfortunately if we did not do something all Mr. Wright's
work would be in vain. All he has done for a year to try to get
going would be in vain. He worries about his staff. Most of them
are young families trying to get a start somewhere. Most of them
earn a little better than minimum wage. We do not even know
what that is like any more, we are so accustomed to our big
salaries.
(1935)
An hon. member: And pensions.
Mr. Thompson: And pensions. We have to start thinking a bit
more about the little guys who are trying to get on their feet.
When times are tough and we get things rolling right, let us
remember that we are trying to provide services and goods that
are much needed throughout the world.
In case anyone has forgotten, the most important industry in
the world is agriculture. We better not ever forget that. We have
to keep our food supplies going where they are needed, keep
people fed when we have the opportunity to do so, keep the jobs
rolling and keep giving opportunities to young people who are
saying that all they want is a chance to prove themselves. They
are hard workers. They do not want welfare. They do not want
10555
unemployment insurance. However we let these kinds of things
go on year after year.
Bless the minister for coming up with the idea to put through
some legislation that will put an end to this situation at last. Let
us hope it is truly meant and let us hope that irresponsible
opposition parties will fall into line and support logical
legislation of this nature.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Madam
Speaker, I rise to indicate the opposition of the New Democratic
Party to this back to work legislation. I suppose it will come as
no surprise to those who are familiar with the stance that the
NDP has taken in the past on back to work legislation.
I was in the House on a number of occasions when we dealt
with some of the back to work legislation members referred to
earlier tonight. Unfortunately, I say to the member for Wild
Rose, I have heard other ministers of labour say that they had to
do something about bringing forward a system to ensure that
they would not have to do this as often as they do.
I have two things to say in that regard. I hope this time the
government will try to bring in such a system. However we
ought not to assume the system it brings forward is one we will
automatically agree with. We may have problems with it but
certainly the government ought to make an effort in that regard.
It was interesting to listen to some of the remarks members of
the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, made on this matter.
Earlier they had an opportunity in the House to delay the
legislation and they did not use it. When the government
invoked the standing order that permitted it to proceed without
unanimous consent, if 10 Bloc Quebecois members had risen at
the appropriate time to object we would not be dealing with the
legislation tonight. There seems to be a bit of a gap between
rhetoric and reality when it comes to the attitude of the official
opposition in this regard.
With respect to the government and its sense of urgency which
it did not display yesterday but which it has in abundance today,
its sense of urgency is related to the movement of grain and the
importance of agriculture. We all know how the argument goes.
I wonder why the government always refuses to take seriously
and hold up to public attention that in many of these cases, as
was the case yesterday and today before the lockout, the workers
were willing to continue moving grain. I know this does not help
other shippers but grain is often held up as the reason for the
urgency.
In these situations I have seen workers and unions repeatedly
offer to keep moving grain. It is the companies, the employers,
that will not tolerate the situation because they want the
government to step in. They rely on it. They know if grain were
to keep moving the political pressure for government
intervention would disappear. Therefore they lock out the
employees to make sure the grain cannot keep moving to create
the appropriate political scenario so the government then has in
some sense a false sense of urgency. If the government really
had a sense of urgency about moving grain, it would respond to
the offer of the employees in the situation and make sure it was
accepted by the company. But the government never does that. It
never ever does that. That is something I wanted to put on
record.
(1940)
When I last checked about an hour ago bargaining was
continuing between the union and management. It would
certainly be ironic if by the time we finished tonight they had an
agreement. Let us hope so. It is always better if something can
be negotiated rather than brought to a conclusion by legislation.
Again going back to the extent to which the government often
bases its arguments about its concern about moving grain-and I
know my Reform colleagues will not agree with me-this is the
same government that announced in the budget the end of the
Crow benefit. In the judgment of many, and not just the New
Democratic Party, that had an extremely deleterious effect on
western Canadian farmers.
We are supposed to believe the crocodile tears that are being
offered on the other side for western Canadian farmers when
only a couple of weeks ago, in the their budget of February 27,
the Liberals completed the job that they started in 1983 in the
House when they were in government. It was the Liberal
government of that day, I would remind western Canadian
farmers who might be listening, that began the demise of the
Crow rate.
I was here then and part of that great parliamentary battle.
That was before the Tory government changed all the rules so
that opposition could not have great parliamentary battles any
more. We cannot delay things. We cannot allow time for public
opinion to develop. We cannot do all the things opposition
parties used to be able to do to give public opinion time to
mobilize on an issue. It does take time.
It was the Liberals who started doing the job on the Crow rate
then and they are finishing it now by getting rid of the Crow
benefit. I do not swallow it when I hear Liberal cabinet ministers
or Liberal members or anybody else getting up and giving me
the old sob story about western Canadian grain farmers. From
our point of view we believe the Liberals are doing far more
harm to the agricultural community in western Canada by virtue
of the policies announced in their budget than a strike on the
west coast could ever do.
I would like to pick up on something the Bloc Quebecois
mentioned, that is the need for anti-scab legislation in the
federal jurisdiction. There is a campaign on now. I am sure the
minister, even though she is new in office, will have inherited a
rather large file from her predecessor of letters from all across
the country, from locals, regional and provincial federations of
10556
labour and other labour leaders calling for anti-scab legislation
in the federal arena.
I would certainly like to add my voice as NDP labour critic to
the call for that kind of legislation. I say that in an uncritical
way. It may be that the government will bring forward a form of
anti-scab legislation that will be unacceptable and will only, as
the member said earlier, legalize a form of scab labour by
sanctifying the movement of employees in a way that amounts to
the same thing. We will wait to see exactly what the minister has
in mind.
We know that in those provinces where genuine anti-scab
legislation has been brought forward there is a lot less
labour-management strife. Management has to bargain. It is not
that all management bargains in bad faith, but there are rotten
apples. Sometimes they bargain in the knowledge that they can
put people out on strike and hire scab labour. When that kind of
legislation is in place they cannot do that and they have to
bargain in good faith. I hope we will see very soon from the
government legislation in that regard.
In my riding a strike has been ongoing for two and a half
years. I see the same guys walking back and forth in front of the
Northern Blower plant in my riding. I believe this is their third
winter. They are dealing with a company that has absentee
ownership that does not care. It will not bargain. It has scab
labour in there. These guys have been in this situation for a long
time. If we had that kind of legislation in the provincial domain
in Manitoba they would not be in that kind of situation. It is
wrong for that to happen to people. I hope that we will see
anti-scab legislation in those provinces which do not now have
it and at the federal level.
(1945)
Just the other day I went to the shopping centre in my riding.
A fellow stopped me as I came out. The projectionists at Famous
Players theatres are on strike. They are being asked by a
company that I understand is making good profits to take a 60
per cent cut in wages.
What is going on when companies can ask people to take this
kind of beating in their standard of living, particularly when
those companies are making money? The company has brought
in other people to run the projectors. If it was not able to do that
it would have to bargain more seriously with its workers and
would not be able to demand these kinds of concessions from
them.
I have mentioned the situation of the lockout when it comes to
the west coast. We have a similar thing happening at CP Rail
right now. The brotherhood of maintenance workers decided to
have a series of rotating or geographically isolated strikes, not
to shut down the whole system, but to demonstrate anger at the
situation without endangering the economy as a whole. What did
the company do? The company locked the workers out. The
company tries to create a crisis.
Obviously we do not have the crisis yet that the company
wants. I am sure it would like to see back to work legislation but
I would try to counsel in the same vein as others counselled the
minister yesterday. Why not try to do something now about the
situation facing us with respect to the railways rather than
waiting until the situation develops further?
I am not talking about back to work legislation. I am talking
about bringing the parties together and knocking some sense
into the railways. They cannot expect railway workers to give up
the kind of employment security benefits they negotiated. The
workers gave up things for that security at the bargaining table
years ago.
The railways cannot have it both ways. They cannot have
asked employees in the past to give up certain benefits in order
to get employment security and then at some point down the
road say: ``Do you know that employment security we gave you
in return for all those things, well, we want it back. However we
are not interested in giving back to you any of the things that you
gave us in order to receive employment security''.
I have a final comment. These debates always illustrate the
kind of philosophical gap that exists between how we interpret
the actions of working people and how we interpret the actions
of people with money.
I heard the member for Wild Rose talk about the young
business couple in his riding being held hostage by, in this case I
presume, the longshoremen. I heard somebody else talk about
the fact that a small number of people can hold up the whole
country in this way. I understand that argument.
Why do we not have the same sense of offence when a small
number of money speculators can hold the whole country
hostage? Why do we not take the same offence at the small
number of currency traders, the global casino operators? Why
do we not take the same offence when they say: ``I am not
getting a high enough interest rate out of you, Canada, so I am
going to undermine your economy''.
Why is their economic freedom and their self-interested
economic judgment to be respected and appeased? Why do we
listen for instance to members of the Reform Party get up in the
House even today and say: ``We have to do what these money
markets want us to do''. Why is their economic self-interest
sacred and yet the economic self-interest of longshoremen is
held in a different category, if not in contempt?
(1950)
I say not just to the Reformers because I have seen this happen
long before they arrived here but we make this distinction.
When working people say: ``I will withdraw my labour because I
10557
am not satisfied with the return I am getting on it,'' we say:
``Don't be so unreasonable. Think of the entire economy. Think
of the shippers, think of the small businessmen, think of the
people you are hurting''.
However, when a money speculator or a currency trader or an
investor says: ``I withdraw my investment. I withdraw my
money from this situation because I am not happy with what I
am getting,'' we say: ``That is the way the world works, you had
better get used to it''. This is a double standard that ought to be
exposed.
We must treat both arguments for economic self-interest
equally. I would be quite prepared to live in a world where
unions, like everyone else, were made accountable to the
common good. But I am not prepared to live in a world where
unions get the argument that they have to take everyone else's
welfare into account while money speculators, investors and
everyone else can just do whatever in hell they like and that is
called reality. No way.
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale, Lib.): Madam Speaker, can I
ask your advice? How much longer are we debating?
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Until 8.07 p.m. We have
80 minutes debate allocated. We have 17 minutes until 8.07.
Mr. Peterson: I am very pleased to be able to say a few words
tonight because I believe we are going through a period of
incredible transition in our country. We have seen the
government having to do things that five years ago we never
would have dreamed would have been necessary when we
brought down the budget.
Canadians realize that there is no longer that pot of gold out
there or that our future is assured or guaranteed. People are
uneasy because they know we are facing change. They also
know that in Canada we have assets unparalleled in any other
country in the world: natural resources and human resources to
actually make the transition from a resource based economy to
an economy dependent on human skills competing in the global
economy.
We can do this but it is going to require a lot of changed
attitudes. I do not believe that in the future the concept of
management on the one side; labour, be they unionized or not,
on the other side, be it government or the public, are going to
necessarily be the stakeholders in the way they have in the past.
We have introduced in our country and throughout the western
world, for very good reasons, the concept of collective
bargaining, the concept that workers have the right to negotiate
freely for their conditions and for their terms of employment.
Management has the right to lock out workers if they do not
accept the union offer. However, more and more we are going to
have to realize that workers are citizens of the country, that
managements are citizens of the country and that all of us have a
stake in finding new ways to deal with labour disputes.
Can we afford to go back to the era of 10 years ago when we
had the worst labour-management record of any of the
industrialized countries? We were doing it to ourselves. Of
course we cannot because we are now competing in a global
economy where other nations have learned to resolve their
labour disputes in a civilized, non-confrontational, non
self-inflicting damage manner. Anytime there is a strike or a
lockout it is an admission of failure in the collective bargaining
process. Let us recognize that.
(1955)
I am glad in the present circumstances that we let this thing go
as long as we possibly could to see if a collective agreement
could be arrived at by a negotiated solution. This is always best,
rather than imposing conditions which may not be acceptable to
either side.
We had to act however. The member for Wild Rose puts it very
forcefully. They went on strike this morning. That is why, with
the consent of all members, we are sitting tonight to pass that
legislation. Maybe some members, like the member for
Winnipeg Transcona, do not necessarily agree with this. I
understand some of his concerns for the working person.
However we have to recognize that the moment we start using
lockouts and strikes, we are denying our competitive ability
vis-à-vis all of our neighbours in the global economy. How
irrational can we be to allow these things to take place?
Legislation preventing strikes in every circumstance is
obviously not the solution. As people with a duty of public
leadership in Parliament perhaps we have to work more closely
with labour and management to see if we can settle these strikes
before they become self-defeating for all of us. Maybe we are
going to have to find ways to say: ``You just cannot strike in
certain circumstances. You cannot lock out in certain
circumstances because it is against the national interest''.
Maybe we can look at new solutions such as final offer
arbitration.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Peterson: Maybe these are some of the approaches we
can go into. However, we know the risk is always there if
management and labour in a dispute know that government will
step in and settle that dispute by legislation. Then they will not
negotiate in good faith.
Looking ahead, the solutions are not always that obvious to
us. If they were, we would have found them a long time ago. No
one in the House believes that strikes and lockouts are the
solution. But I do believe that if we keep stressing that we are
now in this together, it is not a question of adversaries and
stakeholders fighting it out. We are all in the same boat. If we are
10558
fighting one another, we are drilling a hole in the bottom of our
own boat. This has to be the attitude we bring to our future as
management, as labour, as citizens and as government.
With this approach we are going to be able to overcome a lot
of the animosities of the past. In doing this, we will have to
ensure that we do not allow the injustices to creep in which gave
rise during the twenties and the dirty thirties to organized labour
that had to strike. We are going to have to make sure that we do
not have the rapacious management of the twenties and the
thirties that was capable of dictating not only wages and hours,
but conditions that were unsanitary, unhealthy and such things.
That is not what we are asking for. We are enlightened.
We know that a happy workforce is a productive workforce, is
a competitive workforce. We know that a management team that
works with labour and shares their problems, that brings them to
the table, that opens the books to them, that says: ``We have a big
problem, how do we fix it together,'' is the type of enlightened
management that avoids problems and brings about the new
routes to productivity being employed by many of our
competitors around the globe.
Let us not rejoice tonight in the fact that we have had to
legislate an end to this work stoppage. Let us recognize that
what has happened is a failure for every one of us. It is a failure
for everyone in this House who did not use his or her collective
strength and ability to say to labour and management, is there
not a better way. It is a failure based on the way we have done
things in the past. We have done them better recently, but it is
only 10 years ago that we had the worst record for lost days
because of work stoppages, strikes and lockouts.
(2000)
Let us say we have done what we have had to do. It was
necessary in the public good. Let us say, can we not use this as an
occasion to find a better way for the future.
[Translation]
Recognizing the role played by workers, unions, companies,
and Canadians in general, we must recognize that the measures
taken today are not remarkable and that their sole purpose is to
protect exports, harbours, and farmers, and to provide essential
services. But, from now on, let us recognize that we must find
more efficient and more realistic alternatives to ensure peace on
the labour front, and co-operation between unions and
management, in order for Canada to become stronger, more
competitive and more prosperous.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 168)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Bakopanos
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Bridgman
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Bélanger
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chatters
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Discepola
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Epp
Fewchuk
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gerrard
Gilmour
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Harb
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Churchill)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hill (Macleod)
Hill (Prince George-Peace River)
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jennings
Johnston
Kerpan
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lastewka
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape/Cap-Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape/Cap-Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McTeague
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
10559
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Pagtakhan
Paradis
Parrish
Payne
Peric
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Ramsay
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robillard
Rock
Schmidt
Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury)
Silye
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speaker
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Volpe
Walker
Wappel
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
Zed-165
NAYS
Members
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Gaspé)
Blaikie
Bélisle
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Debien
de Jong
Deshaies
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Jacob
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Ménard
Picard (Drummond)
Pomerleau
St-Laurent
Tremblay (Rosemont)-34
PAIRED MEMBERS
Barnes
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Brien
Chan
Comuzzi
Daviault
Gaffney
Godfrey
Guimond
Harvard
Hubbard
Keyes
Lalonde
Landry
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
MacLaren
McWhinney
Mercier
Nunez
Paré
Patry
Rideout
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Terrana
(2025)
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House
went in committee thereon, Mr. Kilgour in the chair.)
[English]
The Chairman: Order. House in committee of the whole on
Bill C-74, an act respecting the supervision of longshoring and
related operations at west coast ports.
[Translation]
The parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the government
in the House has the floor regarding clause 2.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Chairman, some discussions took place between the different
parties in this House.
[English]
Mr. Chairman, I think you will find there is unanimous
consent if such is required, but you will find there is general
consent in the committee to have the amendments put by
members of the opposition. I do not believe there are any
government amendments to the bill, although there may be
some, as the hon. member for Calgary Southwest is keen on
saying.
The opposition may wish to move amendments and there
would be a disposition to allow all of those amendments to be
put, notwithstanding which clause they may be on. Then the
discussion could range over all of the clauses and all of the
amendments while being nominally on clause 2.
At the end of the discussion I think you would find a
disposition to put the question in order on all of the clauses, the
amendments appropriately placed for each clause, the title and
the preamble, or whatever there may be to put questions on at the
end of the bill. I would invite the Chairman to do that if that is
satisfactory. I think you will find general consent.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: We received 11 amending clauses and I
believe all of them are in order.
The chief opposition whip has the floor regarding clause 2.
On Clause 2
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Chairman, I will table a series of eight amendments supported
by the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, and I
will read each of them.
The first amendment reads:
That Bill C-74, in Clause 2, be amended by deleting, in lines 18 and 19, on page
1, the word ``arbitrator''.
The second amendment reads:
10560
That Bill C-74, in Clause 6, be amended by deleting, in line 7, on page 3, the
word ``mediator-arbitrator'' and replacing it with the word ``parties''.
The third amendment reads:
That Bill C-74, in Clause 8, be amended by deleting, in lines 30, 36 and 37,
on page 3, the word ``arbitrator''.
The fourth amendment reads:
That Bill C-74, in Clause 8(2)(b), be amended by deleting, in lines 11 and 12,
on page 4, the words ``and render a decision in respect thereof'' and replacing
them with the words ``and report to the minister''.
The fifth amendment reads:
That Bill C-74, in Clause 8, on page 4, be amended by deleting paragraph
(2)(c), paragraph (2)(d), paragraph (3)(b) and paragraph (4) and by deleting, in
line 18, the word ``arbitrator''.
The sixth amendment reads:
That Bill C-74, in Clause 9, on page 4, be amended by deleting the word
``arbitrator'', in line 34, and by deleting all the words following the word
``mediation'', in lines 40 to 45.
The seventh amendment reads:
That Bill C-74, in Clause 10, on page 5, be amended by deleting the word
``arbitrator'', in lines 3 and 4.
The eighth amendment reads:
That Bill C-74, in Clause 11, on page 5, be amended by deleting after the
word ``provision'', on line 17, all the words in lines 17 to 21.
(2035)
Mr. Chairman, I already made a speech at second reading and
those amendments reflect the proposals put forth during that
speech. Consequently, I have nothing else to add and I will let
other members speak on these issues.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Chairman, the amendments submitted by the Bloc Quebecois, as
I understand them, are meant to introduce a mediation system
without arbitrators, without a timetale and without any
indication of what would be done with the mediator's report.
I would simply like to remind the members of this House that
when the conflict began in the western ports, the government
followed all of the steps set out in the Canada Labour Code. The
first step was to name a conciliator from the department's
Mediation and Conciliation Service. This conciliator was named
back in 1993 to help the parties negotiate with each other.
Unfortunately, the conciliator achieved no real results.
Then, my predecessor officially named a conciliation
commissioner. This action was taken back in October 1994. The
commissioner worked with the parties for several months and
submitted a report quite recently, in February 1995.
Therefore, I think that all of the possible mediation and
conciliation steps to bring the parties to an agreement regarding
the collective agreement have already been taken. This is why I
find myself obliged to tell the Bloc Quebecois that it would be
extremely difficult for this government to accept its proposed
amendments.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Chairman, our amendments clarify a
number of points, including what should be done with the report.
We suggest submitting the report to the minister. I assume that if
the minister received a mediation report which involved the
participation of both parties, she would know what to do, which
means at least reading it and probably taking some kind of
action. That was my first point.
Second, I realize there was an investigation commissioner,
but the fact remains that special legislation has something
urgent about it and is a major step in the process, and the parties
would certainly take the mediator's proposals more seriously in
the knowledge that the minister would subsequently receive a
report which they had helped to draft and that the minister would
be able to intervene, to take this report and bring the discussions
and the mediator's proposals before the House.
So I think the basics are there. And if the minister wants to
include a time limit in days in the amendments we are
proposing, well, we would be happy to oblige if the minister is
so concerned about that.
On the other hand, I must say that when we consider how this
dispute developed, all the employer did was order a lock-out
and 15 hours later we have special legislation. This tends to
poison labour relations, and that is exactly what happened.
(2040)
It should be pointed out that the union allowed grain
movement and longshoring. It was management that interrupted
these essential services which could be maintained under an
anti-strikebreaking act. I disagree somewhat with my colleague
from the NDP who said earlier that the Bloc Quebecois had
made this emergency debate possible. I think it is important to
debate this issue, even though we will be voting against this
legislation.
I will remind him that, had his party held its own in the 1990
debate on anti-strikebreaking legislation, perhaps we would not
be having this debate now. But the NDP did not do so in
November 1990. Principles are one thing, actions are another
and actions speak loader than words.
I think that, with our amendments, the hon. minister has
enough material to take more significant action in this matter.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Chairman, I think the hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois
misunderstood me. First, let me assure the House that, as
Minister of Labour, I personally read each and every report I
receive. Have no fear, if a report is sent to me, I will read it.
10561
I think the Bloc member did not understand the fact that I
already have a report that was sent to my predecessor. We have
already tried conciliation at a previous step in this process.
There was a concilation commissioner who submitted a report,
not only to the minister, but to both parties involved who took
cognizance of it.
The conciliation commissioner did an outstanding job. He
examined in detail all the problems involved and came up with
some answers. His report was handed down not only to the
minister, but also to both parties involved. The bill before us
provides for the appointment of a mediator-arbitrator, that is to
say that the emphasis will be put, first and foremost, on
mediation.
This is in line with the wishes expressed by members of the
Bloc Quebecois who demanded a mediation process. This bill
will ensure that such a mediation process takes place. If the
parties cannot reach an agreement, the mediator will become an
arbitrator and will then act in such a capacity. So, in that sense,
the bill before us addresses the concerns of both parties who,
unfortunately, could not come to an agreement.
As I said earlier, a Minister of Labour is always reluctant to
introduce back-to-work legislation. It is always better for the
parties to come to an agreement by themselves, but since this
was not possible, we must act to protect the entire economy of
Western Canada.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a big difference
with this bill. This bill provides for a back to work order which
we agree with and do not wish to amend. What is proposed here
is a mediation process as a result of the pressure tactics used by
the union or a lockout declared by management, and we agree
with a back-to-work legislation.
What we say, however, is that it would be much better for the
mediator to do his or her job in a setting different from that
which existed before the pressure tactics, the lockout and the
special back-to-work legislation. This bill contains all the
elements needed for the parties to adopt more realistic attitudes,
which was not the case when an investigation commissioner was
chosen even before any pressure tactics was used by the parties,
something they will no longer be able to do after this bill is
passed.
Mrs. Robillard: Mr. Chairman, I think that the Minister of
Labour can act according to the Canada Labour Code. If I
understand correctly, what is wanted is that the bill require a
return to work and the appointment of a mediator who would
report to the minister.
(2045)
But what would happen afterwards? How would we make a
decision? How would we reach a collective agreement? It is not
incumbent on the Minister of Labour to make the final decision
and to decide on the clauses of the collective agreement. It is
exactly for that reason that the Canada Labour Code gives us the
possibility of naming an arbitrator. And therefore it seems to me
very appropriate to have a mediator-arbitrator who will be able
to play both roles.
The Chairman: Before recognizing the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, I think that I must give some
explanation to the House.
[English]
We are having a general debate on all of the amendments so
that any member can get up at any time on any amendment. It
should be understood by all members that is the case.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Mr. Chairman, I rise to provide some response to the question
the minister asked and to draw attention to what I see as a
contradiction between the bill and the excellent decision to set
up a board of inquiry. There have been a lot of problems in this
sector of labour relations for a number of years. The minister
says it is time to clean things up, understand what is going on,
change the rules and take the appropriate corrective action.
At the same time, the bill repeats the same old traditional
pattern of making special laws for ports, as has been done for a
number of years. The practice has always been to decide for the
parties. We would expect, and this is the focus of our
amendments rather than the elimination of the notion of
arbitrator, that the minister would want to change the way things
are done, just as the board of inquiry should bring about
effective changes in practices and ways of operating.
We must remember that they got to this point because they
knew from the outset that this was the way it worked in the
sector. Therefore, from the outset, they negotiated knowing that,
in the end, they would reach this point and that there might be
special legislation because of what has happened in the past.
What we must give them is the message that this longstanding
pattern no longer works and must be changed.
Therefore, adopting a special law is no solution. We are
telling them to return to work and to their bargaining
responsibilities, to resume negotiations with a mediator so that
they are not relieved of their responsibility, but are rather
confronted with it, and will have to reach an agreement as they
are the interested parties. This is the meaning of the
amendments we made.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Chairman, I now understand more clearly the intent of the
amendments brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois, but I want
to say to the members of this House that we have to solve, in the
very short term, a problem that exists at this very moment. At
8.45 p.m. tonight, we have a problem in Western Canada and the
10562
appointment of a commission of inquiry will not give us short
term solutions to this problem.
The appointment of a commission of inquiry will certainly
help us in the medium term so that this situation does not happen
again. Right now, I agree that we are opting for a more
traditional solution, if I may use this expression before the
members of this House, to the dispute that is going on. This
more traditional solution is the appointment of a
mediator-arbitrator who will impose a settlement so that we
have a collective agreement that will be effective until at least
December 31, 1996.
In the meantime, we will appoint a commission of inquiry
which will review the bargaining process and we will be able to
see what changes can be made later on. So, the bill before us will
help us solve the problem in the very short term, but we will still
take a long term look at the whole bargaining process.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw the attention
of the House to the last amendment on our list because it is a
little different. That amendment provides that in clause 11, on
page 5, line 17, all the words after the word ``agreement'' be
deleted. That clause reads as follows: ``Nothing in this Act shall
be construed so as to limit or restrict the rights of the parties to
the collective agreement to agree to amend any provision of the
collective agreement-and the clause goes on-amended by or
pursuant to this Act, other than a provision relating to the term
of the collective agreement, and to give effect thereto.''
The purpose of our amendment is to delete all the words after
the word ``agreement'' so that the parties will have much more
freedom to agree on provisions other than those provided for in
the bill, more particularly relating to the term of the agreement.
(2050)
We would like the parties to have the opportunity, if they so
wish, to negotiate provisions other than those in the bill, and
especially a back to work agreement. It would be important for
the parties to have some breathing space to do that.
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Chairman, I have been informed this is already possible under
the present provisions of the Canada Labour Code. The
amendment proposed by the hon. member for the Bloc
Quebecois is unnecessary.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Chairman, if it is already indicated in the
Canada Labour Code, then it is a matter of clarification. If it is
already in the Canada Labour Code, it would be unnecessary to
say what it says in the bill, because this would mean adding
something that already exists in the Canada Labour Code. Here,
certain clauses restrict the rights of the parties, but we do not
want any restrictions on the rights of the parties. This is in line
with getting rid of the mediator-arbitrator, but it is an additional
element that could apply even if the amendment on the
mediator-arbitrator is rejected.
[English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, it is
sad that I must stand here today to talk about putting an end to a
strike that should not have happened.
This type of work stoppage has happened again and again.
There have been over 25 stoppages in the grain handling system
in the last 25 years. There is no need for that.
The irony is that as we debate putting an end to this
longshoreman strike, at this very time there is a labour
disruption effecting rail movements which will still prevent the
proper movement of grain and other commodities to market.
I refer to the Minister of Labour's response in question period
yesterday to a question from the hon. member for Simcoe
Centre. He said: ``The Minister of Labour may have time to wait
and sort this out but Canadian farmers do not. Present shipments
are in danger. They must plan for future crops now and should
not have to worry about whether the rail system will be there
when they need it. I ask the minister again, when will the
government introduce back to work legislation?''
The response from the Minister of Labour was: ``I would like
to ask the Reform member to remain calm and to refrain from
spreading panic among the parties concerned. As we speak,
grain is moving in the west, in Vancouver this very day. We
should keep in contact with the parties and keep in mind that it is
always better to negotiate an agreement than to envision
legislating these people back to work''.
The hon. member for Simcoe Centre said in his next question:
``We have been calm far too long. When is the time to get
nervous? It is right now. There have been 13 work stoppages in
29 years. Our western grain growers cannot afford to bear the
brunt of another strike. Canada's transportation system must be
reliable or our customers will go elsewhere. Once the back to
work legislation is passed, will the government take steps to
ensure the threat of future rail strikes is removed once and for
all?''
The minister's response was: ``As usual, the hon. member is
going a bit too fast. At this stage, legislation is out of the
question, so I will not answer hypothetical questions''.
10563
(2055 )
The minister's response to the Reform member's question
was not acceptable then and it is not acceptable now.
Today we are talking about ending a strike which affects
longshoremen. It is not good enough to do this today. We must
bring in back to work legislation tomorrow to end the rail strike
which will still cost farmers and other shippers money
tomorrow, Friday, Saturday and the day after that.
The Chairman: The hon. member is speaking to the matter.
He can speak to any of the amendments or any of the clauses.
The members on the government side were listened to
courteously. I think the members of the government side might
listen to this member who comes from the grain producing
region of Canada.
Mr. Benoit: Mr. Chairman, tomorrow let us get back to work
legislation on the rail strikes. Next week let us get legislation
before the House that will prevent this from happening again
next year and in the years following.
I would like to thank my fellow members of caucus who have
worked so hard in pushing for an end to this strike. I would like
to thank in particular the member for Wild Rose for asking
yesterday for an emergency debate to end the longshoremen
strike which stopped movement of grain and other products. I
would also like to thank the Liberal government and the labour
minister for her action in legislating this strike to an end.
I want to talk about the costs this strike will bring to farmers,
that the strike last year brought to farmers, that the rail strike
will continue to bring to farmers in western Canada and to others
who depend on this movement system.
Particularly for the farmers these costs include demurrage
costs on ships that wait to be loaded. It cost millions of dollars
last year in the 12-day strike. It took the government 11 days to
act last year. I guess it is to be congratulated. It took less time
this year with this strike. How long is the government going to
take on the rail strike? We have yet to see.
There are 28 ships waiting in port right now with 17 more
ships due by Friday. More than 60 per cent of the grain exports
are not moving. Grain elevators are backed up. Lost sales which
we incur with each of these strikes are the biggest single cost to
farmers and for other shipping commodities through the west
coast and other ports.
What is the value of lost sales in grain due to this strike, due to
the rail strike which still continues, due to the strike last year?
Last year the estimated cost over the 12-day strike was over
$200 million in lost sales. This year for the longshoremen strike
it will be millions more. We do not know when the rail
disruption will end. I would like to ask the minister when she
plans to end the rail disruption.
Why did this longshoremen strike and the rail strike ever
happen? In 1992 a contract ended. We knew, this minister knew,
this Liberal government knew, Reformers certainly knew,
farmers knew and union members knew there would be a work
stoppage.
It has become tradition for unions to depend on back to work
legislation to end strikes and lockouts. It has become tradition
because they have learned over the past years they do very well
by waiting for government to legislate them back to work. In
some cases the agreements have actually been better than they
have been asking for in negotiation. Labour has come to depend
on governments legislating them back to work.
Why did we have to wait until the work stoppage actually
came into effect? Why are we waiting for the rail strike to
continue? When will the minister act in that regard?
(2100)
Last year when government legislated an end to a disruption
on the west coast, the Reform Party presented during the debate
positive alternatives which, if implemented, would have
prevented this situation from ever happening. Reform pushed
for last best offer arbitration during last year's debate. Nothing
was done. I would like to quote from a speech that I gave about a
year ago in the House in very similar circumstances.
I want to present one of the Reform options which I presented
to the House at that time and which the Liberal government
should have responded to then and which I ask it to respond to
now.
I talked about two options. The second option:
-is to put in place a better labour-management negotiation process. This
could involve ensuring that a new agreement will be in place before the old one
expires-
To accomplish that an arbitrator could be appointed approximately six
months before a contract expires. If a settlement has not been reached within
two weeks of the end of the contract, then an arbitrator would ask management
and labour to come up with their best offer, their best position. The arbitrator
would then pick one, either the labour position or the management position. One
position would be completely accepted and the other position completely
rejected.
Under this process a strike would not be allowed to occur. This is good for
labour. It is good for management. It is good for western Canadian grain farmers
and others using the system. These options should be considered in developing a
long term solution to the recurring disruptions in the grain handling system.
That is what I recommended in debate last year.
Since then the hon. member for Lethbridge has put forward a
private members' bill on this issue, Bill C-62, which he will talk
about later. In that bill is the process for dealing with last best
offer arbitration.
10564
I encourage the government after the third hour of debate
which takes place at noon on Monday to be here to vote in favour
of Bill C-62 so that we will have in place a mechanism that will
work and that will satisfy labour and management to some
extent. It will prevent these disputes and these disruptions from
happening in the future.
I call on the Liberals now to be here on Monday to listen to the
third hour of private members' debate and to vote so that these
disputes will not occur in the future.
As my last question I ask the hon. Minister of Labour if she
will support Bill C-262 which will put in place a last best offer
arbitration procedure that will prevent any disruptions in the
grain handling system from occurring in the future?
I ask the labour minister that now and I encourage her to
support the bill next Monday. I ask her whether she will support
this bill.
[Translation]
The Chairman: The Minister of Labour may prefer to answer
both members at the same time. The hon. member for the official
opposition put a question earlier. Does the minister wish to
respond or would she rather wait until the end of this discussion?
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Chairman, in response to the question asked by the hon. member
from the Bloc Quebecois, I will remind him that clause 11 of the
bill before us allows the parties to amend any provision of the
collective agreement, including those that will be imposed on
them, other than the term of the collective agreement, of course.
Clause 11 gives a fair bit of flexibility.
(2105)
Second, I would tell my colleague from the Reform Party that
the government has already made a decision on all the problems
that he has raised. First, it will solve the problem very quickly
through this back to work legislation but also by setting up an
industrial inquiry commission that will review the collective
agreement structure.
I do not know whether the investigation commissioner will
draw the same conclusions as the hon. member from the Reform
Party, but I think that we should analyse the situation as a whole
and that is why we will appoint an investigation commissioner.
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr.
Chairman, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. I wonder
if she could tell the House whether or not it is the general policy
of the government to bring in back to work legislation which
does not legislate a settlement, as is the case with this
legislation?
Is it the policy of the government to bring in legislation
without a settlement? The legislation before us does not have a
settlement. It appoints a mediator or arbitrator. Is this the
general policy of the government with respect to back to work
legislation?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Chairman, the government assesses each situation on its own
merits.
[English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Chairman, I was sitting here just a few minutes ago wondering
why I was happy to be here at seven minutes after nine on a
Wednesday evening. I just realized what it was. I get to sit in the
front row once a year. However, that is hardly reason enough to
be here once a year; to pass back to work legislation in labour
disputes.
Many of the points I want to make this evening to the
government and to the opposition have already been made so I
will dispense with them. However, there are a couple of
questions and a couple of concerns that I do have with this
legislation and I would like to spend a few minutes asking a
couple of questions.
Before I do that, I had a letter handed to me today from an
alfalfa dehydrator in Olds, Alberta. I think it is worthwhile
reading it into the record tonight. It is an obvious concern from
people in that industry who go through these types of labour
disputes on an almost regular basis. Certainly they have concern
for the future of their businesses whenever they see one coming
down the road.
I will read this letter, if I may:
If in any small way my name or the name of my company can stop the insane
abuse of power a very few people have over so many others, please use them.
In our industry Canada only has a 3 per cent market share. The U.S.A. has 85
per cent, China and Australia have about 5 per cent each. The Americans cannot
be happier, they probably will sell lots more product now and will lock in more
future sales because of Canada's poor track record and reliability and with no
future end in sight to the strikes. My customers from Japan ask, ``How can we be
so stupid?'' ``If you cannot supply them we have no choice''. Americans will
win again, not because they are better, more competitive, or have better quality
but through default.
If the Dominion of Canada wants me to pay taxes and to help fight the deficit,
please help me deliver products I have sold. End this strike forever.
It is signed: ``A discouraged export business owner''. His
name is Blair Wright from Olds, Alberta.
The reason I read that is that I think it is critical. I echo the
words of my colleagues who have said that we cannot continue
to work under this system. I encourage the minister to develop
some sort of system. I encourage her to do that in order to
pre-empt these types of labour disputes. As the member of
10565
Parliament for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, I would offer my
support to the minister and I would be prepared to help in any
way I can to make that happen.
(2110)
The two questions I would like to ask the minister on the
legislation are, first, why are the Montreal docks not included in
this legislation? Second, if the Reform Party had been drafting
this legislation it would have removed section 8 and replaced it
with final offer selection, which has been discussed here before.
I want to be very clear about this. I talked to the minister's
officials before the debate began tonight. I understand that the
reason behind not using final offer selection is that it was used
about a year ago in a labour dispute that was then ongoing. I
understand and I accept what they have told me.
However, I would like to ask the minister if she believes that
final offer selection could be useful at some point in this
process. Would she commit the mediator-arbitrator to move to
final offer selection at some point in this process if it is
necessary?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Chairman, with respect to the port of Montreal, why is the
situation there not included in this bill? Well, I would say that
the situation in the port of Montreal is completely different.
I said earlier that we evaluated each situation on its merits.
That is what we have done in the case of the port of Montreal. As
you know, there is a labour relations problem there too, but all
the other ports in the province of Quebec are now also in
operation. Trois-Rivières, Sorel and Quebec City come to mind.
Therefore the impact or consequences are not as great compared
to the situation in Western Canada. That is my first comment.
My second is that, in the port of Montreal, we have seen over
the years that the parties are very often able to reach an
agreement. I believe that we have not had a general strike in the
port of Montreal for over 20 years. At this point I have complete
confidence that the parties can still come to an agreement in the
port of Montreal. It is also very clear that I am making them a
formal offer of mediation, precisely for the purpose of reaching
such an agreement. Under these circumstances, I would consider
legislative intervention completely premature.
As for the second question, regarding the possibility of a final
offer, I would like to say that the complexity of this year's
debate, compared to last year's, is completely different. Last
year, there was only one element involved. If I remember
correctly, the issue then was whether or not to allow an increase
from 65 to 70 cents. The question was very simple: yes or no?
The issue was a very straightforward one.
The situation before us today is much more complex. That is
why we have opted for mediation-arbitration. If there is a final
offer, the decision will be up to the arbitrator.
[English]
The Chairman: The member for Winnipeg Transcona made it
clear that he had not finished his earlier remarks.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister a question
earlier.
Concerning back to work legislation, is it the general policy
of the government to bring in back to work legislation which
does not involve a settlement, but rather a mediator-arbitrator
as is the case before us now?
The reason I ask that question is because of the debate which
has already ensued here and the comments which have been
made about the possibility of further back to work legislation
having to do with the rail situation. There is a concern, given
some of the things the Minister of Transport has said in the past,
that if the government brings in back to work legislation it may
legislate a settlement to get rid of or reduce severely the
employment security benefits that are in the current collective
bargaining agreements.
I want to ask the Minister of Labour whether or not she can
give assurances to the House and to the people who are
concerned about the nature of that back to work legislation. Has
the government ruled out legislating a settlement, particularly
in respect of the employment security benefits?
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr.
Chairman, I repeat that each situation is assessed on its merit.
As for the railway situation, it is now 9.15 p.m., so it is
premature to talk about back to work legislation. I would not
want to base my opinion on assumptions, but we will assess each
of these situations. I am happy to see that negotiations were
going on, today, in the railway sector. Once again, the main
purpose of the minister of Labour is to help parties reach an
agreement and to legislate. When we do that, it is because we do
not have a choice any more.
[English]
The Chairman: There are four people who want to speak and
there are about 15 minutes left. One more comment from the
member for Winnipeg-Transcona.
Mr. Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Minister of
Labour with respect, I understand there is no need for back to
work legislation now and I hope there will be no need. I cannot
foresee a situation in which there would be. But her colleague,
the Minister of Transport, also has a responsibility in the area of
rail. He has indicated on a number of occasions that the
government would act to eliminate the employment security
provisions of the collective bargaining agreements if they could
not be negotiated away.
10566
What policy does the Minister of Labour bring to this
particular situation which I am sure she is familiar with? On the
merits of the situation as she now understands it, is she prepared
to tell me and this House that the government will not legislate a
settlement-
The Chairman: The member has been here as long as I have
and would know the matter he has raised is not relevant to the
bill now before the House. If the minister wants to make a
comment she can, but it is certainly not relevant to what we are
talking about.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I
have a first question to put this debate into perspective. I keep
hearing my colleague talk about strikes and more strikes. I think
he mentioned the word five times. To my knowledge and from
what I have read about the situation, a report was tabled, the
employer implemented it unilaterally while the union was
against it. The employer then proceeded to lock out the
employees. To my knowledge such was the chain of events.
Workers are not on strike, they have been locked-out. This is the
first point. Madam Minister, I am asking you to tell us whether I
am right or my colleague is right.
As to the actual return to work we have no objections, but we
do have objections with what the minister is proposing, a
graduated approach. She mentioned earlier a conciliation which
effectively took place. Normally, the second stage in labour
relations is mediation, followed by arbitration, if need be. I
believe that as far as graduated responses are concerned, this
one, as my hon. colleague mentioned, is rather swift, since we
have already reached the mediation-arbitration stage, only
twenty hours after the lock-out started. This is rather quick, and
I believe that it sends a dangerous message to Canadian
employers as a whole, especially since no life is at risk. I
understand that from an economic perspective, this issue is very
important.
(2120 )
It is conceivable that, from now on, employers in the rest of
Canada are going to say: ``If we lock out our workers, what
might happen is that the minister and the House of Commons are
going to pass back to work legislation which will impose a
mediator-arbitrator and they will both abdicate their
responsibilities''.
My second question to the minister is this: Does she not think
that she is going a bit too fast with her graduated back to work
measures?
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr.
Chairman, let me take this opportunity to express my warmest
and sincerest congratulations to the new Minister of Labour who
acted very quickly on this issue in a very decisive fashion. I
think that was warranted, given the situation we are facing.
The decision to bring in legislation to force people back to
their jobs is never taken lightly. It is a step that is only taken
when the stakes are too high for a strike to be left to take its
course. This is such a time.
Last February, Canada's grain handling and transportation
system was disrupted for 11 days when longshoremen on the
west coast went on strike. It was a significant contributing factor
in the big transportation backlog. This was only the most recent
of several work stoppages in recent years that have affected the
grains and oilseeds industry. The direct cost of that strike to the
industry was estimated at $35 million above and beyond other
significant losses resulting from deferred or lost sales.
Make no mistake about it. Whenever our ability to transport
our grains and oilseeds and other crops to port is disrupted, our
customers look to other suppliers to meet their needs. These
repeated work stoppages no matter what their cause have the
same results, a negative impact on our sales. Some of our
customers have questioned our reputation for consistent and
timely delivery of quality grains and oilseeds.
Last April and May the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food made an important trip to Japan, Korea, China and
Hong Kong. While he was there he was told face to face by some
very angry customers that they were not happy with Canada's
performance. The message was clear: We had better clean up our
act or our customers would find other suppliers.
Immediately after that trip, to avoid any finger pointing or
buck passing, as he puts it, the minister called together all the
major operational players for a face to face meeting in Winnipeg
on May 16. The objective of that meeting was to confront the
reality of our problems and to work out practical solutions very
quickly.
Now we are faced with the same issue for a second
consecutive year. No one can guarantee that our customers will
indeed be understanding.
I would like to mention a few specific examples of the
potential impact of this strike. The Canadian Wheat Board has
indicated that its export program for March is 2.9 million tonnes
through both east and west coast ports. This represents an
estimated sales value of $511.5 million. Every week the board
exports 570,000 tonnes of wheat and barley worth more than
$102 million. Over the balance of the crop year we will export
more than one million tonnes a month.
Every tonne not moved in March will roll over into the next
month, making it more difficult to maintain the planned export
program. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that the
potential for lost sales from just one week of lost shipping will
have a serious impact on our grain exports.
10567
(2125)
The wheat board has advised us that four vessels are waiting
at the west coast port as we speak. Another 18 vessels will arrive
this week to load 500,000 tonnes and 12 more will arrive before
the end of March. Aside from the potential cost of lost sales, the
charges will be significant if work does not resume immediately.
No wonder the Canadian Wheat Board has asked the government
to take quick action to resolve this critical situation.
On top of the effects the strike would have on wheat and
barley exports, is the potential impact on our export of canola,
our second largest export crop. Canada will export 4.2 million
tonnes of canola seed this year worth $1.6 million. A major
portion of it will pass through the ports of the west coast.
The Chairman: Excuse me. I wonder if the member is aware
that other members want to speak. There is a relatively short
time left. Had the parliamentary secretary finished his remarks
or was he just about to finish them?
Mr. Bevilacqua: Mr. Chairman, since the 1970s, Japan has
been our largest and most reliable customer of canola seed. In
fact, canola has become the predominant vegetable used in
Japan. While the Japanese prize the quality of the Canadian
crop, they also place a premium on reliability. Japanese crushers
purchase canola on the basis of just in time delivery and
inventory approach. Needless to say, strikes and other work
stoppages play havoc with this system.
With the experiences of the last few years, Japanese crushers
are becoming quite concerned about our ability to reliably ship
the quantities of canola that are required when they are indeed
required.
Last week, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food met with the chairman of the
international affairs committee of the Japanese Oil Seed
Processors Association. He was seeking assurances that there
would be no disruption in our oilseed shipments. The
parliamentary secretary assured him that the government would
act decisively to ensure that any disruption would be very minor.
For this and many other reasons, I ask this house to support
the action taken by the Minister of Labour.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette, Ref.): Mr.
Chairman, I am astounded with what I hear tonight. I am totally
astounded and ashamed to stand in this House and say what I
have to say tonight. Yes, ashamed that I have to say it.
For a whole week I have tried to get some communications
through to the port of Montreal. Today I am told that I am such a
second class citizen that they will not even listen to me in this
House.
I have a constituent who has $200,000 worth of sunflower
seeds locked up in the port of Montreal and he cannot get them
out without even trying to ship them. The bank manager is
talking about foreclosing on him and we are joking around here
about the lives of people.
(2130)
When the House passes legislation where criminals can
dictate to the judicial system and get paid for inconvenience and
the people in my constituency have to go hungry, something is
wrong in the House.
An hon. member: He is talking about the last strike. What
about this strike?
Mr. Hoeppner: The member can scream and I can scream
too. This is serious to me. I told my constituent today that I
would help him to take legal action whenever he can to get this
mess cleaned up.
We have tried to work with the government. We have tried to
work with the minister to get that stuff out of there so that it will
not be ruined. However what are we doing? Nothing, absolutely
nothing. That is the type Parliament that has come about. I am
ashamed. I feel like taking my citizenship and moving out of the
country if this is the kind of justice we have. It is time that we
change it.
My uncle was shot before a firing squad in the Soviet Union to
get out of a system like that and that is what we are coming to.
We had better realize it. When a man who is depending on
putting food on his table cannot get his product out of the yard,
something is wrong.
The Chairman: Pursuant to the order made earlier this day, it
is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every
question necessary to dispose of the committee of the whole
stage of the bill now before the House.
[Translation]
The question is on amendment to clause 2. Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Chairman: All those in favour of the amendment will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Chairman: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Chairman: In my opinion, the nays have it.
Some hon. members: On division.
10568
(Amendment negatived.)
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Chairman, if there is unanimous consent, I
propose that we apply the result of this vote to all the
amendments proposed.
The Chairman: Is there consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Consequently, the amendments to clauses 6,
8, 9, 10 and 11 are negatived.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 7 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause agreed to.)
(2135)
The Chairman: Shall clause 8 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 9 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 10 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 11 carry?
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause agreed to.)
[English]
The Chairman: Shall clause 12 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 13 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 14 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 15 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall clause 16 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause agreed to.)
(Clause 1 agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall the schedule carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Schedule agreed to.)
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Title agreed to.)
(Bill reported.)
(2140)
[Translation]
Hon. Lucienne Robillard (Minister of Labour, Lib.) moved
that Bill C-74 be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
Mrs. Robillard moved that the bill be read the third time and
passed.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is with conviction that I rise again in
this House to introduce the 1995 legislation on west coast port
operations. As you know, the purpose of this bill is to end the
current dispute between two parties.
I have already explained at length all the details surrounding
this dispute which, in my opinion and in the opinion of many
Canadians, cannot go on. Until now, the government had pro-
10569
vided all the assistance it could to help solve the problems. First,
we appointed a conciliator.
Then we appointed a conciliation commissioner, whose report
was submitted to the parties. Unfortunately, we face a situation
which requires government action. Believe me, it is with regret
that, as the Minister of Labour, I must table this bill before the
members of this House. It would be much better-and we all
know it-for the parties to negotiate a collective agreement
together, and that is our basic policy.
However, all port operations on the west coast have now come
to a stop and the economic consequences are such that the
government must act. This bill provides for the immediate
resumption of operations and the appointment of a
mediator-arbitrator, who, I hope, will bring the parties closer.
In closing, allow me to thank all the members of this House
for their co-operation on this bill. This shows, I think, that we
all care about this country's economic development.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, you will, however, understand that my speech will
differ from that of the Reform Party, even though we are both
speaking in opposition.
I would like to say that it is always difficult moment for
Parliament when its elected members are obliged to adopt
special legislation to force people back to work, since we agree,
hope and say that, in the workplace, there is nothing better than a
collective agreement that is wanted, negotiated and
implemented by the parties.
Therefore, I believe that the Minister of Labour cannot be
particularly proud of starting her career here in this House, by
imposing special legislation. She will be quite free in the
coming days to go down in history by allowing us to adopt
anti-strikebreaker legislation, legislation sought by the official
opposition from the time there were eight of us, and we continue
to think that this must be done.
(2145)
Therefore, we are saying to the minister that the best way for
her to continue her work as Minister of Labour is not to
introduce more back to work legislation, but to follow in the
footsteps of one of the greatest Quebec democrats, a person she
should seek to emulate, I am referring, of course, to René
Lévesque who gave the province of Quebec an effective
anti-scab legislation.
Since I mentioned anti-scab legislation, I should remind you
that in a province or country-the Labour Minister in nodding in
approval to the position of the Bloc-there is a direct link
between such a legislation and the length of strikes and also, I
should say, healthy labour relations.
This is what we are saying to the minister: it is unbelievable
that, in 1995, no anti-strikebreaking legislation is in place at
this federal level of intervention. I know that she realizes such
legislation is necessary and wants to put it in place. She said
herself that preliminary consultations were under way and she
was committed to consulting the parties. So, she will have the
chance in the days to come to go down in history as having given
this country an anti-strikebreaking act.
With this in mind, as the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie said and the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup after him, we, the official
opposition, fully grasp what a shame it is to have a lock-out
bring the West Coast to a standstill. We know how important
port activity is to the economy of the region. That is why we
hope that a back to work agreement can be signed.
The difference between the labour minister and ourselves is
the fact that we do not want a back-to-work order at any cost.
Our concern with this bill is that it will shamelessly resort to
arbitration. The minister should be consistent with herself. She
was very pleased to tell us earlier that the discussions have
resumed, that both parties have come back to the negotiation
table, although their efforts might be a bit timid. She even linked
the resumption of the negotiations to the statement she made in
the House during question period.
We should be pleased about the efforts, albeit timid, made by
both parties to resume negociations. We take comfort from the
fact that, with the resumption of the negotiations, we might be
able to avoid arbitration and rely on the mediation process.
It is certainly not because we are naïve or overly tolerant that
we in the official opposition continue to believe that mediation
would have been possible. Why would mediation have been
possible and why is it desirable? Because in the delicate balance
of labour relations, arbitration means acting unilaterally. A third
party outside the dispute is given the extraordinary power to
make decisions on the application and the validity of each clause
of a collective agreement. We think that this is not desirable,
that the use of arbitration where a person will be able to impose a
collective agreement that will be effective until December 1996
is not desirable. I will say it again, we would have preferred
being able to continue the mediation process.
A link should also be made with another fact. We believe
things would have been different if we had had anti-scab
legislation in Ottawa. This debate provides us with an
opportunity to do something. The hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup reminded us that this is the
second time the House passes special legislation concerning
operations at the west coast ports.
At the time of the first legislation, the present labour minister
had other things on her mind, and I am sure she had no idea that
she would some day be the member for Saint-Henri-West-
10570
mount in the House of Commons. But she must not forget that,
at that time, we were already debating back to work legislation.
Why is it that her government, a government that she
obviously supports, did not take the opportunity of that first
labour dispute to set up a commission of inquiry on labour
relations that were already a cause for concern.
(2150)
Why did we wait so long? Why did we not learn from that first
labour dispute and the passing of special legislation several
months ago. It is because of all this deteriorating process that we
are puzzled by the action taken by the minister.
I want to take this opportunity to really invite my colleague to
make an impression as Minister of Labour. We all know that she
is a determined and brilliant woman and that she is able, if she
wants to, to take advantage of this labour relations review
process to bring the parliamentarians to participate in this
debate on whether or not we should have an anti-scab legislation
at the federal level. We believe so and we have an opportunity to
evaluate a model which is the one established by the Quebec
National Assembly.
The Minister of Labour, who is a few years older than I am,
will recall that this anti-scab legislation has proven right in
Quebec, which used to be the champion for lost hours and days
of work. The anti-scab legislation played a crucial role in
pacifying labour relations. This is what we must aim at in the
days to come.
We have to keep in mind, because it is important to do so, that
we have two classes of workers, since three provinces have
passed anti-scab legislation: Ontario, British-Columbia and
Quebec. Thus, this is to say that some 60 to 65 per cent of the
Canadian workers are protected by anti-scab legislation.
Therefore, there are two classes of Canadians. This situation is
far from healthy or acceptable.
To conclude, I want to say to the labour minister that she and I
have something in common. Like her, I represent here a
Montreal constituency. As hon. members for Montreal, we are
obviously concerned with the continuing situation in the port of
Montreal.
The minister says she is confident that we can avoid resorting
to special legislation and that a negotiated agreement can be
reached. I am sure the parties involved will take advantage of
the mediation offer aimed at a negotiated settlement, so that we
can have a collective agreement that is desired.
To avoid the kind of situation we are now in, it is important to
maintain the optimum conditions for dialogue. However, these
optimum conditions, that we would like to see for Montreal, can
obviously not be maintained on the West Coast, because if the
bill is passed, working conditions, non-monetary clauses as
well as salary clauses, will be imposed by arbitration.
The Reformers' impatience is hard to understand, because it
must be said that they have been behaving in a very unruly
manner tonight, and I am sure that my colleagues will agree with
me because everyone knows that the members of the Reform
were unruly.
In conclusion, we agree with the return to work, but we would
like to see ideal conditions for dialogue maintained, which is
incompatible with a special bill.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Finally, with apologies, the hon.
member for Lethbridge.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill
C-74.
We want to move those ships out full of western Canadian
grain. I appreciate the member from Winnipeg's indicating that
to this assembly.
For many years in my period of time as a member of the
Alberta Legislature there were numerous opportunities, I
remember about 12, where governments of Canada, both Liberal
and Conservative, did not have the gumption or the
aggressiveness to deal with this problem.
(2155 )
We in Alberta moved resolution after resolution asking the
federal government to pass legislation to put the workers back to
work. The governments did it but to a major cost to western
Canadian farmers over and over again.
A year ago it cost us a lot of money, $35 million in demurrage
and penalties. The Alberta Wheat Pool tells us there was $100
million in terms of loss to the Canadian economy and $450
million in lost sales for grain farmers. That is provided by the
figures from the Canadian Wheat Board.
Many dollars were lost. Even in this short time that the
workers were off work, we suffered serious losses. One of my
colleagues illustrated in the House earlier that the strike cost one
of our alfalfa shippers $250,000 because they could not get it off
the boat and into the marketplace. That market was lost to some
American producers. I do not think that is fair.
I understand the minister and the government were advised
several days ago that an agreement could not be reached. Why
did we not bring legislation into the House so that if a strike did
occur we could act immediately and put the workers back to
work?
This is the first step in a series of responsibilities the House
will have. We have not settled the matter with regard to
Montreal. My colleague, the member for Lisgar-Marquette,
has illustrated that point very well on how one of his producers
10571
or processors in that province of Manitoba is affected in a very
significant way. We have to deal with that. Why did we not deal
with that tonight and get it over with for the industry?
We do appreciate that the minister has brought the legislation
before this assembly. We give her full credit and compliment her
for that and compliment the composition of the legislation as it
is. It has met one of the needs of western Canadians. The
minister deserves that credit.
I also on behalf of my colleagues want to give the minister
credit for the fact that she and the government intend to set up a
commission or some body to look at ways we can deal with this
problem on a basis that does not require legislation or a
knee-jerk reaction every time workers walk off the job or there
is a lockout, as is the case at the present time. I give the
government full credit for that.
In all the years federal governments have dealt with this issue
they have always brought legislation in to put the workers back
to work or prevent or stop a lockout and they stopped there. They
were afraid to challenge the unions on this very basic question.
They were afraid to do what they thought would disturb the
collective bargaining process and they wanted to maintain the
integrity of that process.
Western Canadian farmers face a very unique situation. It is
different. We as farmers in the west are victims of the collective
bargaining process. We pay the bills. When there is demurrage
to be paid we pay it as farmers. When there is loss of sales we
pay it as farmers. Whatever the losses are we are the ones who
pay. It is not management. It is not the unions. They do not pay
any of it. There are no losses on their part. It is the person who
ships the raw product, grain and other agricultural products, or
our processed products into the export market. We are the
victims.
The collective bargaining process as it now stands is
completely unfair. The right to strike in that process does not fit
that circumstance at all.
(2200)
There must be a different approach. I have recommended in
private members' Bill C-262 that we look at a process by which
there is binding arbitration and that each party provides to the
arbitrator a final position.
The arbitrator then would choose one position or the other and
at that the work continues and there is an agreement for both of
the parties. That is one of the options we should look at. Maybe
there are other options.
The minister has indicated there will be a commission. The
matter will be studied. I hope that is not a diversion or a delay. I
hope the minister and Prime Minister are very sincere that there
will be recommendations that will come into either the June
portion of this session or into the fall session of the House
whereby we deal with the problem once and for all.
It can be done without violating what we talked about, the
collective bargaining agreement process by which management
and employees can settle their various disputes.
Agriculture is different from General Motors, for example.
General Motors has management. Its employees produce
automobiles. If the automobiles are not manufactured and sold,
management and employees are affected. It does not affect the
other people beyond that. That is the very basic difference in
terms of these two processes.
We intend to support this legislation. We want the government
to support it and move quickly on it. We want it to deal with the
other circumstances affecting the export of agriculture and other
export products. We want that to happen as quickly as possible.
If it needs to be done tomorrow let us do it tomorrow and not
wait until there is a major crisis in our economy.
We are looking forward to some major changes in legislation
this fall that will deal with this problem on a long term basis.
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to pick up on something I was speaking about
earlier but which was exacerbated by a speech given by a Liberal
member who spoke about the national interest.
In the context of talking about the national interest, a double
standard exists between how we regard labour when it pursues
its economic self-interest and how we regard capital when it
pursues its economic self-interest.
When money markets act in ways that hold the country
hostage, we do not take the same offence as some members take
when a trade union is said to be holding the economy hostage in
its economic self-interest.
What I was pleading for was that there not be this double
standard that if we want to hold that everyone should be
accountable to the common good or to the national interest, we
have to do that with some uniformity.
We cannot say that trade unions or working people should be
accountable to the national interest but the money marketeers,
the currency traders and the money speculators can do what they
like, act in their own economic self-interest and that our only
role as a Parliament is to appease them, ask them what they want
next, do whatever they want so that they will invest in our
country. We need to to stop having this double standard.
Picking up on the comment that the Liberal member made
about national interest, this is also an interesting concept given
globalization and free trade agreements.
10572
Why are working people asked to subscribe to a notion called
the national interest? I believe in the national interest, but when
we ask the same thing of the corporate sector we are accused of
being romantic. We are accused of not being with it. We are
accused of not understanding that there are no borders any more.
Investors, capital and corporations move all around the world
doing whatever they want. Anyone who wants to talk about the
national interest, except when they are trying to morally
intimidate working people into giving up their economic
self-interests, are called romantic. Why is that? Why is there
this double standard when it comes to working people? I do not
understand it.
I think ordinary Canadians sense there is something fishy
when they are always supposed to act in the national interest but
the people who can play with interest rates and the money
markets and who can look around the planet for cheaper labour
markets or weaker environmental regulations or weaker labour
laws, that is okay for them. They can seek their economic
self-interests; that is just called finding a good investment
climate. However, when working people want to do the same
thing, shame on them. They are not taking the national interest
into account.
I say, shame on this House for accepting that double standard.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the
following motion:
That on Thursday, March 16, 1995, when proceedings pursuant to Standing
Order 38 have been concluded, the motion to adjourn the House shall be deemed
to have been withdrawn and the sitting shall be suspended until such time as the
Chair may reconvene the sitting for the sole purpose of a royal assent;
That immediately upon return from the royal assent, the House shall be
adjourned until the next sitting day, provided that if no royal assent has been
held by 9 a.m. on Friday, March 17, 1995, the House shall be reconvened for the
sole purpose of being adjourned until 10 a.m. on that day.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to that,
colleagues?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is not unanimous consent to the
motion.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think a formal motion of adjournment is required
pursuant to the order of the House earlier this day. Therefore, I
move:
That this House do now adjourn.
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to that
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
The Deputy Speaker: The House is adjourned.
(The House adjourned at 10.09 p.m.)