Debates of Nov. 25th, 1999

Canadian Institutes Of Health Research Act

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, to repeal the Medical Research Council Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Until this summer I was industry critic for my party. For two years, I had an opportunity to see the representatives of universities, numerous research centres and of course funding councils that came before us. They came to tell us how underfunded research and development was in Canada, and how much the funding had dropped in real terms.

It would be important to look at the major trends in the way support to health research has been distributed. I have here a chart, which I cannot show to the House, but which was provided by the Medical Research Council of Canada. It shows that in Canada, while funding had been increasing by about 10% since 1991, in 1994, shortly after the Liberal Party came to office, this funding started to diminish to the point where it dropped below zero.

Meanwhile, the increase was 30% in France and in excess of 40% in the United States and in the United Kingdom. Other figures show increases of up to 80% in the United States.

The council also told us “public investments in health research have diminished by 10% since 1985, while they went up by 80% in the United States. This gap is increasing every year and is leading us straight to conditions that will prevent us from attracting the best researchers”.

The situation lasted until just about now. Under these conditions, we can only be pleased to finally see money being invested in health research and development. Canada is seriously lagging behind and cannot make up for lost time.

I want to point out that, under these difficult circumstances, Quebec maintained the same level of funding, while Canada's was diminishing.

I do not have the figures for the health sector alone, only for the whole research component, for the research areas funded by the Quebec and federal governments. From 1984-85 to 1996-97, federal funding for these sectors dropped from 55% to 37%, while funding provided by Quebec remained at 23%.

The federal government cut. We can look at various figures, but it cut funding to health research. The Government of Quebec maintained its funding, despite the radical cuts by the federal government of up to 40% in education.

Under these conditions, obviously, and I could not not say this, the fact that money has finally been announced for health, is good news, excellent news. It is late arriving, though, but better late than continuing on this slippery and dangerous slope, which caused research teams to fall apart, with some attracted by the United States, not by salaries or lower taxes, as has been claimed, but primarily because they could have research teams and equipment. So, well done.

However, what is the government that has now decided to invest in health doing? It is not doing as it did before, that is, funding specific projects through the funding councils. Since 1993, there has been a new approach, which has now culminated in the health research institutes, the corporation created by this bill, which will create divisions. This is not my word, it is in clause 20. So the CIHR will, in turn, create divisions.

I have a number of concerns, the first being the very real potential for centralization as the bill now stands. Of course, the government can tell us that that is not the bill's intent. It is not what the officials or those who worked on the bill intended. Our responsibility as parliamentarians is to read bills, because we are learning that they can always be useful at some time or another, and even though the government or the minister claims to be acting in good faith, there is always the bill.

So, this institute gives sweeping powers to its governing council, which will establish divisions. The bill says that its responsibility is to maintain and terminate them, so the power is total and absolute, and determine the mandate of each. The council shall create an advisory board for each health research institute and appoint the members of the advisory boards, and it shall appoint a scientific director for each health research institute. Obviously, the governing council will itself be appointed by the federal government.

Compared to the earlier operating structure, I think it fair to say that the bill is trying to improve things. Nonetheless, the autonomy research groups used to have with respect to projects is not at all guaranteed in this bill, as I read it. That is my first concern.

My second is that the government is proposing—and this too is very clear—that an integrated health research agenda be forged. This appears in the objective of the CIHR: “forging an integrated health research agenda across disciplines, sectors and regions that reflects the emerging health needs of Canadians and the evolution of the health system and supports health policy decision-making”.

The result of this objective might even be that the influence of this council on the organization could ultimately have an impact on health in Quebec.

Students will be trained there. Scientists will have their own teams, and we will build a body of knowledge.

There is another thing that is very worrisome, namely that the provinces are considered just like any other scientist or volunteer agency. The government says it will consult them.

One thing is certain, Quebec is not investing enough as it is, because of its dire financial situation, but it still invests in research and universities. A link must be established between the existing teams and the institutes to be created.

Which criteria will be used to choose the people who will create the institutes? Which ones will be established in Quebec, and what will happen to ongoing projects?

This bill raises all kinds of questions, and I know that our distinguished colleague, our health critic, will introduce the amendments we will insist on. After the drastic cuts the government has made in health research, we are not going to sit back; we will ensure that the money goes where it should and as it should.

[Inky Mark, Reform, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to enter the debate on Bill C-13, an act to establish the Canadian institutes of health research and to repeal the Medical Research Council Act.

There is no doubt that health is the number one issue in the minds of all Canadians. It is unfortunate that over the last six years since 1993 the Liberal government has slashed $21 billion from health and education. It is in a way ironic to be talking about health research and new spending because we know it is necessary. I wonder how many people understand and realize the damage that has taken place over the last six years with the reduction in health care.

If health is the number one issue, then I ask the government why it did that. Certainly there are ways of reducing the budgetary deficit other than cutting $21 billion. It absolutely does not make sense.

As a country we not only promote but brag about our great health care system. Canadians expect good health care. Canadians also expect governments to deliver, to be transparent and to be honest in terms of how they govern.

It makes sense that good health care cannot exist without good research. Neither can good industries. Innovation cannot occur without good research and development.

In my own province, health care budget reductions have had a profound effect on the health delivery to individual citizens. I wonder if the government realizes the impact it has had on the little guy who needs health care, the grassroots Canadian. I know very well because I experienced it in my former position as a municipal leader. We had to wrestle with the whole issue.

Provincial governments because of health transfer cuts had to find creative ways of delivering health care. That usually meant if we had less money there was less we could do. What is the normal course of action for most governments? They consolidate, they regionalize, they sell a bill of goods saying that there is going to be the same service but at less cost, that it is going to be a more efficient system.

That is what happened in Manitoba. The problems that existed from the original cutbacks in health are still there today. I still meet with municipal leaders and health officials to talk about the mess that the health sector is in, certainly in the riding of Dauphin—Swan River, and it is throughout the province.

One of the concerns with this bill is about the patronage appointments of people serving on the board. That is essentially what the provincial government did as well. It had a good system. The people were elected at the local level. The boards were smaller and the hospitals more varied, serving local communities, but they were elected democratically. We went to a regional board. Hon. members can guess how these board members were chosen. They were not elected. They were patronage appointments made by the provincial government. As it turned out, people are still talking about these patronage appointments. They really do not represent the people at the local area. They do not know the concerns.

This is one of the concerns with this legislation. The government continues to appoint people without giving the citizens a say. The bottom line is that the people of this country pay the bills. They should have access to decision making.

I would say the same thing about the heritage portfolio, for which I am the chief critic. Again, my biggest criticism is the numerous boards that are appointed by government. They are not appointed by the people they should be serving. Even if they were elected by national organizations, that would be a huge improvement. Even if the government had a part to play, even if it advertised to the public that these positions were available, that would be better.

With the recent appointment of the new head of the CBC I made that very point. In fact, the chairman of the CBC board agreed that the board should make that appointment, not the Prime Minister's office. Who pays for the operation of the CBC? Obviously, the taxpayers, to the tune of about $900 million. Does the poor little taxpayer have any say in terms of who should run the corporation? Not at all. It is unfortunate. It is not real democracy. It is not grassroots democracy. It is hidden. It is not transparent.

My view is that the CBC position should have been advertised throughout the country. There are many well qualified people throughout the country who could have applied. It would have been a huge improvement if the CBC board would have done that, instead of having the Prime Minister's office or the Prime Minister decide who should be the head of the CBC.

I want to enunciate some areas of concern that Reform has about Bill C-13. Although the intent of the CIHR is to foster scientific research and promote Canadian initiatives, there has been little time to consult various scientific communities, to receive input, to scope the areas of research. Again, this is another example of a government bill where an idea occurred and the government did not take the time to do the research or consult the community. We know that the expertise is in the community. It is out there. It certainly does not exist in this room. We are the catalysts that bring people together. I do not know what the rush is. If we are going to do something, we should do it well.

Will the applicants themselves direct the bulk of the research, or will the nature of the research be directed by the advisory boards, which will force applicants to apply for funding in areas dictated by a central body? That is a good question.

Although the CIHR will strive to ensure that only 4% to 5% of the total budget will be spent on administrative costs, the new institutes will require a bureaucratic infrastructure to perform necessary functions. Can the CIHR avoid the trend of having a huge part of its budget administered for bureaucracy and not have sufficient funds to administer the actual research which is dictated under its mandate?

Given the wide scope of its mandate, will the initial budgetary expenditure be sufficient to carry out its entire mandate? If not, will parliament be required to allocate additional funds for the creation of this institute?

The president of the CIHR will make recommendations to the governing council as to who should be appointed to the advisory councils. The president will make recommendations based on a public selection process, but will the president follow the advice of the public selection process or bypass these recommendations and appoint members based on individual choice?

There are many good parts to the bill. It appears to be an excellent model for an institute which will remain at arm's length from the federal government and conduct research independent of the government. The consultation process for appointments will draw on leading experts from every conceivable field of expertise, and this should reduce the influence of high ranking government officials. These and other details I have mentioned can be addressed before the committee when the bill reaches that stage. There is also a strong need to consult the scientific and health communities for input as to the direction of the CIHR.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to take part in the debate on Bill C-13 at second reading stage. That is fortunate, because this bill needs a lot of amendments to be more in tune with the reality of Quebec and with the Constitution of Canada.

First of all, we know that health is an area of provincial jurisdiction. As my hon. colleague for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve was saying yesterday, I am in favor of Bill C-13 in principle. However, I have some reservations as to its present wording.

Ever since I came to the House of Commons, I have had great difficulty trusting the Liberal government. In the beginning, we always hear the same cassette and see the same scenario. The government puts on a great show of democracy and says that it respects the Constitution. That is what we hear from the politicians opposite and that is the tone we find in the Speeches from the Throne, both the one delivered in September 1997 and the latest one delivered in October 1999.

Actually, what is the federal Liberal government doing? It makes itself look good in the media, then interferes in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Every time a minister stands up and tries to make us believe that the government respects the provincial jurisdictions, something just does not sound right.

I have difficulty understanding what federal Liberal ministers and members are saying. I remember the bad experience we went through when the social union framework was discussed. Fortunately, the Government of Quebec did not ratify it. We know the federal government will use this document to try to justify its having jurisdiction in certain areas when it goes to Seattle next week for the start of the World Trade Organization negotiations.

I also remember the sorry outcome of this social union framework. For health care, Quebec got $55 million, while Ontario got $1 billion. Because of this social injustice, Quebec is going through a difficult period in the area of health care.

One does not have to look very far. The numerous media reports on that subject clearly show the problem comes from Ottawa, because the money is in Ottawa. The Minister of Finance brags about having managed to eliminate the deficit, but any accountant could have done the same. It is very easy to grab the money and cut transfers to the provinces.

It is also very easy for a government to have a budget surplus when it dips into the employment insurance fund, taking money that was paid by workers and employers, as well as into the federal employees' pension fund.

What the Minister of Finance did is no miracle. These cuts, totalling $7 billion, are hurting Quebecers. They are hurting seniors.

Recently, I had the opportunity to meet retirees. These people are often isolated and alone. They are worried and they are stressed out by the idea that they will have to wait a long time before getting test results. They have to be very courageous when they have to go to hospitals and to emergency clinics. All this is caused by the Canadian government.

I now want to get back to Bill C-13. If the federal government's intentions were so good, why did it do what it is doing with the Canadian institutes of health research? Why did it choose this approach? Because it is again taking the centralizing approach that implies Canadian standards. Once again, it ignored totally the situation in each province, including Quebec.

The situation is completely different in British Columbia, in the prairies, in Ontario, in Quebec or in the maritimes. When the Canadian constitution was ratified, the Fathers of Confederation decided that health would be a provincial responsibility. The closer the level of government is to the people—the provinces are much closer to the people—the better it can manage health care fairly. This is not the case at present, because we do not have enough money.

Let us look at the consequences. I will quote a few statistics. For example, Quebec's current health and social services minister, Pauline Marois, is short $1 billion. This represents 20% of the cost of running all the hospitals in Quebec, accounts for the closing of half the hospitals in the Montreal area—and I am convinced the statistics would be the same, a little lower maybe, for hospitals in the Chaudière—Appalaches region—and is equivalent to the cost of caring for 370,000 patients.

As we know, the Government of Quebec is involved in negotiations at the present time. What does one billion dollars represent? The salaries of half the nurses in Quebec—and that is a lot of money—or the cost of running all the CLSCs. In his reform, Minister Rochon wanted to bring all primary care into the CLSCs.

We are short of money. This is twice the cost of all services to youth. This is the result of the federal government's social agenda and this is the situation in which the Government of Quebec finds itself, $1 billion in the hole.

With Bill C-13, this government is trying to make us believe that it is going to respect provincial areas of jurisdiction. That is a joke, considering the way the Liberal government is acting.

There is a need for Bill C-13, because if we are to make progress as the years go by—and we are on the verge of the third millennium—we need money to support all those involved in research, particularly those who are seeking preventive solutions. That is the good thing about Bill C-13.

But when we see this government once again wanting to appropriate jurisdictions, although it is trying to make us believe that it is going to respect Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, I have a big problem with that.

I agree with the principle of the bill, but it needs a lot of changes. One need only look at the powers assigned to the governing council of this new federal body and the way the federal government behaves toward the provinces.

I trust that when the debate on second reading of this bill is over, we will be in a position to be listened to properly when it goes to committee. I trust that the Liberal members who will be around the table will listen attentively and will, once and for all, respect the Canadian constitution.

They are very proud of the Canadian constitution, but they have a great deal of difficulty when it comes to understanding it, reading it and, in particular, respecting it.

Finally, there will be the recourses provided by third reading. Bill C-13 is good for research and for all those who want to advance medicine in Quebec, but the tools for so doing must belong to the province of Quebec, since it has jurisdiction over health.

The tools and the regulations relating to Bill C-13 must be clear in order to avoid having the federal government once again make use of a new institution in an attempt to standardize from sea to sea something as basic as this.

I hope they will listen, because we agree with the principle, but major changes relating to the mechanisms for implementation of Bill C-13 are needed.

[Grant McNally, Reform, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter the debate on Bill C-13. My colleague from the Bloc hopes that Liberal members will listen. I hate to give him bad news but I doubt that will actually happen. However, we will keep speaking.

The bill goes in the right direction in some areas. I will quote a bit of its preamble wherein it says:

Whereas parliament recognizes that Canadians value health as central to happiness and fulfilment, and aspire to be among the healthiest people in the world.

I agree with that and I think all members of the House would agree with that. If that is something the government is intending to put into place, and we encourage it to do so, I believe it is necessary for it to take actions to back up those words.

If we take a look at the actions of the government going back to 1993 in the area of health, we see that the government has taken money out of the Canadian health care system. I believe a total of about $21 billion in health care and education has been taken out since 1993.

Day after day in this place we hear the finance minister refer to what would happen if other parties were in power and all kinds of statements which deflect the fact that the government must stand on its own record. It is the case for any government that it will be judged on what it has done, its actions, what it actually delivered, and not just on its words.

We have seen time and time again in this place that the government will say one thing and do another. My colleague from the Bloc referred to that. If it can create the perception with the general public that it is doing something then it has won the battle. It does not seem to be interested in making the actual applications and changes in law that will have a direct impact and effect on the end user of any system. Bill C-13 goes in the right direction. We would like the government to take those steps in other areas as well.

I met with a constituent on Monday this week at home before I left to come here who had some really serious questions in the area of health care, which is what we are talking about in Bill C-13. He is a young man who was infected with hepatitis C through no fault of his own as a result of a blood transfusion. He is still a young man. He told me his story of what this meant to him and his family, how he had received a transfusion and years later when the issue came out was encouraged by his wife to get tested.

He put that off, understandably so, because of the ramifications that would impact on him and his family if he were to find out that he tested positive for hepatitis C. Finally he did get tested and it was found that he had hepatitis C. It has totally changed his life and perspective. I must compliment him. He is still a positive individual who is looking for changes in many different areas, particularly with the implementation of the new blood system, hoping it does not follow on the failures of the old system.

In his letter Peter Madsen asked me if I would relay some questions to the Minister of Health on the particular area. He has given me permission to share it with others. He wrote:

Why does everyone in the HCV compensation package, from the lawyers and actuaries and committees etc., get guaranteed money except for the victims involved?

He went on to write:

If this government is sitting on such a surplus, why is the compensation package not guaranteed? What do you say to the kids who may not receive compensation because the money has run out?

These are questions on the area of health from my constituent who is looking for answers. He went on to write:

Is the government going to fight the lawyers $58.5 million asking price? This does not include the victims who must find lawyers to access their compensation.

Why was money taken out of the HCV funds to compensate secondarily infected HIV victims?

He concluded by writing:

Krever called for no-fault compensation...why then is the (Minister of Health) putting in as narrow a window as he thinks is the area of legal responsibility of the government and using this window as legal point to ignore Krever and ignore the pre-1986 and post post-1990 people, contrary to Krever?

Mr. Madsen had these comments for the Minister of Health. He ended his letter by writing:

This compensation package was rammed down our throats with our lawyers telling us that if we don't like it...too bad. We could opt out but then we would have to (a) find a lawyer and (b) wait many more years fighting more government lawyers. This was a closed door negotiation process with the victims having no say whether they liked it or not.

Those are questions that one of my constituents asked the minister about on that particular area of health care.

There are other Canadians who have many pressing questions for the government on its delivery of health care. As I mentioned, Bill C-13 goes in the right direction of one particular aspect of fixing the system to make it more effective in the area of research funding. If the government could take that same kind of approach with the health care system in general, as it has with this bill, the opposition would encourage it.

While Bill C-13 is not a perfect bill and there are areas that could be improved on, it goes in the right direction. I am afraid we cannot say that the Minister of Health is on the same track in terms of the overall health care system within our country. There are vast areas for improvement that the minister could act on immediately. We encourage the government to act on what Canadians hold so dearly, and that is fixing the health care system. Many times we hear the government say things but not back up those words with actions.

The bill also indicates that parliament is cognizant of an historic opportunity to transform health research in Canada. I would argue that same historic opportunity is being presented to the Liberal government as well in the area of health care. It has an opportunity to repair the damage that has been done. Much of that damage was inflicted by the government through its reduction of transfer payments to the provinces in the area of health care.

It has an historic opportunity to make right the wrongs it has inflicted on Canadians through its approach and through its funding cuts in health. We encourage the government to look on this as an opportunity to make right what is so clearly in need of help in the country.

We also encourage the government to look at all areas of its responsibility and to look for ways to make effective changes that set a positive course for Canadians.

I believe that is what Canadians are truly looking for from a government. They are looking for a group of individuals who come to this place to set out a vision for the country and then act on it by putting policies and platforms in place which would have the effect of what it says it will do.

In conclusion, if we walk outside this great place and look up to the bell tower we see engraved there, not far from where we are here, the phrase “Where there is no vision the people perish”. I would argue that the government is lacking in its vision in many areas.

This is one bill that moves in the right direction, and I compliment the government for that, but I would encourage it to move in the right direction in more areas than one small one.

If the Liberals will not move forward and make positive changes, we will certainly work hard to form the government to make the changes necessary to set the country back on its feet again with a positive, forward moving vision.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-13. Since I am not the first member of my party to speak in this debate, you probably know already that the Bloc Quebecois supports this bill.

Our colleague, the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, who is responsible for this issue as the health critic for the Bloc Quebecois, already announced that we would be proposing amendments. As all the members who spoke before me said, regardless of their political affiliation, even if we applaud heartily the government's decision to invest in research, we have some concerns about how the institutes will be established and managed.

Why do we applaud investment in research? For one simple reason. Since the 1993 election campaign, based on an OECD report that blamed Canada for trailing behind in research and development, the Bloc Quebecois has been using every opportunity to remind the government that it must make major investments in research in general, but more specifically in health research.

If we look at the figures provided to me by my colleague from Mercier, whom I wish to thank most sincerely, we can see—and there is a very significant table—that research investments made in Canada since the Liberal Party came to power in 1993 have fallen below zero and are now just over 10%, while they have increased by 30% in France, 40% in the United Kingdom 40% and 80% in the United States.

Unfortunately, under our rules and procedures, we cannot show this document, but it would be interesting if those watching could see how disastrous Canada's actions have been as far as investments are concerned since that party took office.

A Bloc Quebecois dissenting report, presented with the industry committee report entitled “Research Funding-Strengthening the Sources of Innovation”—a report published recently, in June 1999—states as follows, and I quote:

From 1984-85 to 1996-97, the federal government's share of total government funding for the main fields of university research in Quebec fell from 55% to 37%, while the Quebec government's share remained steady at 23%.

Funds from the private sector made up much of the difference, as its share increased from 10% to 26% , primarily in the form of the partnerships that are the focus of the Committee's report.

What information or lessons can be drawn from this situation? The Canadian government uses buzz words in its Speeches from the Throne—indeed, this was not the first time. It talks of managing knowledge. It has bored us stiff with that. For the government, managing knowledge means reducing research funds invested in the various sectors of research, allowing the private sector to invest even more money in research, with all the risks that represents.

Let us consider Monsanto, for example, which sponsors research by academics, then says “You have to answer our needs”. With this sort of attitude, one has every right to be concerned.

Now, a look at the proposed organization chart for the governing council and the proposed organization for these institutes, we once again have a wall-to-wall, Canada-wide institute, which will cover all provinces and territories. We are told it will be more virtual than real and that it will link researchers within information networks. Wholly integrated buzz words, again, but what will it mean in reality and what will the result be?

Naturally we are told that the institutes will have to work from four perspectives, in each case: basic biomedical activities, clinical research activities, health services and systems and impacts on society, culture and public health.

We might ask what happens with these things. Let us look at a specific example for our viewers, who are wondering what it all boils down to.

In order to have some sense of the operations of an institute, let us take the example of an institute on ageing. Its multidisciplinary research program could concern the problems caused by the ageing of Canadians. As part of its mandate, the institute could work on Alzheimer's disease from biomedical perspectives in terms of the molecular mechanisms of Alzheimer's disease.

In the clinical field, what are the most effective drugs or treatments? In the case of health services: is it preferable to treat someone suffering from this disease in the community, and if so, how, or is it preferable to treat them in an institution?

Health determinants, the fourth sector, are the societal, cultural and health factors involved. Are there elements of lifestyle, environmental factors or dietary factors that contribute to disease?

By bringing together researchers working on common goals, the institutes will promote creativity, generate new ideas in the area of health research and promote strategic policy to take Canada into the new millennium. That is what the government says. To that end, it is investing $65 million and has already decided how it will be allocated.

In the meantime, however, what has this government done? It has cut billions from health care. It is probably assuaging its guilt. It has been doing so for a while. It cut nearly $7 billion, to round off the figures.

Again yesterday and today, the finance minister had the nerve to say “We are so generous that we reinvested $11 billion”. Hogwash, if members do not mind my saying so, since the government had announced it would make further cuts and that $42 billion worth of cuts were still to come. And now the minister is saying “I am so generous, I am so good, I will only cut $33 billion”.

He wants people to believe he is putting money back in when in reality the government is still making drastic cuts there is $33 billion more in cuts to come.

Since I am being signalled that my time is about to expire, I will say in conclusion that I believe the government is chiefly responsible for the difficulties the provinces are experiencing in health care. We will see to it, when the time comes for us to introduce amendments, that the bill gives a larger role to the provinces.

They have jurisdiction over health care, and we will defend the point of view and interests of Quebec, since Quebec has several areas of excellence and we want our scientists' contribution to the management of knowledge in Canada and Quebec to be properly recognized.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I read Bill C-13, my first reaction was “Finally”, because, since 1994, Canada has been the undisputed champion of cuts to research programs.

There is a very telling chart which shows that, between 1991 and 1998, for the United Kingdom, the United States, France and Canada, only Canada's investments in health research were lower than in 1991.

The figures for 1998 are in. For that whole year, Canada's investments were 10% less than what they were in 1991. Meanwhile, France increased its investments by 30% compared to 1991. The increase over the same period is 40% for the United States and 50% for the United Kingdom. This is why the Bloc Quebecois is saying “Finally”. Let us not forget that, during the 1993 campaign, the Bloc Quebecois candidates and their leader asked that more money be put back into health research. In 1997, the Bloc Quebecois candidates and their new leader asked the same thing.

This shows that in politics, tenacity eventually yields results. The bill before us is a case in point.

In 1990-91, per capita expenditures in Canada were at $8.71, compared to $39.71 in the United States. In 1997-98, per capita expenditures in Canada were at $8.23, compared to $66.64 in the United States. So, there has been a drop of $0.48 in Canada. We are now investing less than in 1991. No wonder there is a brain drain. Is it because we pay too much tax? Is it for some other reason?

Of course, if we do not invest in health research, health researchers will certainly go to places where they can get jobs.

We can applaud the principle of this bill. There were examples that were quite disturbing. Examples of the number of grants that are being given. In British Columbia, for instance, in 1996-97, there were 31 grants totalling $1.96 million, for which there was no follow-up. In Quebec universities, at Laval, there were 40 grants, for a total of $2.863 million. So there are examples that support the fact that some action finally had to be taken.

Our problem is that we realized that this bill, once we had read it in detail, requires many amendments. I tried to find where it mentioned the provinces and I found, in the mandate of the large institute, a reference to the provinces in clause 4. It says that in “encouraging health research”, the institute will

—engage the provinces and voluntary organizations, the private sector and others, in or outside Canada, with complementary research interests;

However, the bill does not indicate—and this is rather astonishing, since, in Canada, health is a provincial jurisdiction—that the research projects will be selected according to the goals set by the provinces. Quebec is about to implement a science policy, and we would like this bill to consider the various aspects of the science policy that the government and the people of Quebec will be implementing.

The current wording of the bill gives us little hope, in this regard. I hope some members of the Liberal majority and of the other parties will be sensitive enough to amend the legislation to make it bearable, in order to avoid absurd situations where the federal government would be investing in some areas, while the Quebec policy would be supporting other research projects or options.

In my view, that would be totally unacceptable, because Quebec's priorities in health research may differ from those of Canada. In the past, we have discovered cholesterol problems and genetic diseases that may differ widely from what is found in other parts of the country. There are population changes and regional problems and concerns that may be unique to Quebec or unique to other provinces in Canada. In its current form, I do not think this bill is to our satisfaction.

I have a very specific concern and it has to do with regional distribution of health services. For example, clause 4, which states the objective, talks about “fostering the discussion of ethical issues”. There are specialists in this field, in which the Université du Québec à Rimouski, among others, has developed an expertise. It has an ethics chair and professors who work in this field.

This is problem, particularly in the research field, and I have discussed it with some of our scientists. We must realize that getting a research contract is not like buying a chair. There are all kinds of representations that are made. Lobbying is an integral part of the process, and it is important that scientists in the various regions can have their say, the same way they would if they were in the national capital.

In that regard, lessons from the past have shown us that we will have to be vigilant and make sure that researchers, wherever they are, have an opportunity to get a research contract because it is also a development tool. Research contracts create a synergy which leads to the creation of other small businesses in the area. Small processing operations can get under way after 5, 10, 15 or 20 years. Hence our concerns in that area.

I also think we should make sure that institutes are not established in certain sectors without the consent of the provinces. We must make sure that, when institutes are established, it is done according to the provinces' priorities and that the members of the governing council are selected from lists provided by the provinces, so that they can be their eyes and ears. If, for example, a researcher in our region or at Laval University or the Université de Montréal is not satisfied with a situation or requires a clarification—there is a reference to transparency in the bill—there should be a mechanism in place to facilitate this.

—ensuring transparency and accountability to Canadians for the investment of the Government of Canada in health research.

For this to really happen, the members of the governing council must reflect the entire Canadian scientific community. In sectors such as health, their names must be provided by the provinces.

I believe what we have before us is a bill that is worthwhile in principle. I also believe that substantial improvements are necessary to make it into a tool for the development of health research in Quebec, not just one for the development of health research for all of Canada.

We know that a worthwhile outcome is possible. There is much talk of international standards in this bill. There may be some outcomes of global interest to be presented to our international colleagues, but we also need outcomes in this country that must be

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up.

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Independent Truckers

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should explore the questions surrounding federal-provincial jurisdiction in the areas of labour law and transportation law as regards independent truckers in the province of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, on October 8, I was in Louvicourt, 36 kilometres from Val-d'Or, where I spent the day with Quebec truckers to find out about their claims concerning the road transportation crisis in Quebec.

I met Denis Martin and Vital Meilleur, who were representing truckers and who told me about commitments that the Quebec government made in 1998 but failed to honour. They included legislative changes and a promise to put pressure on the federal government to amend Canadian laws accordingly.

The Quebec government made a written commitment to adopt these legislative changes by January 1, 2000. I have here a copy of these commitments made on October 25, 1998, at 9.45 p.m., and signed by two ministers of the Quebec government.

One year after these written commitments were made, the government of Lucien Bouchard still has not taken any concrete action. Worse still, the Quebec Minister of Labour, Diane Lemieux, announced her intention to postpone indefinitely the long awaited labour code reform for truckers in Quebec.

On October 8, truckers from Quebec and the Abitibi who were in Louvicourt told me that they have had enough of the unfulfilled commitments of the Bouchard government. The document was signed by two ministers of the Parti Quebecois on October 25, 1998, around 9.45 p.m., namely the Minister of Transport, Jacques Brassard, and the Minister of Labour.

That document includes 11 sections. It provides that a committee of experts must be set up. That was done and properly done. The Bernier report, a 200 page document, was submitted to the government in 1999.

Section 2 and the following provide:

1. Explore the questions surrounding federal-provincial jurisdiction in the areas of labour law and transportation law.

2. Propose possible scenarios and evaluate their applicability to the labour relations between independent truckers and clients.

3. Examine the nature of the contractual relations between contractors and clients, as they relate to law 430 (division of responsibilities).

4. Define eligibility criteria for becoming an independent trucker that will ensure a harmonious transition for the holders of bulk trucking permits.

5. Analyse the working conditions of independent truckers, i.e. rates, contracting charter, driver pay, hours of work, etc.

We know that a number of things are now being done anyway. Quebec's transport minister, Mr. Chevrette, has set up a committee that includes a federal representative. Committee members are working very hard, but the year 2000 is fast approaching.

The truckers present confirmed to me verbally that they are sick of seeing their working conditions deteriorate in Quebec. Clients are imposing difficult conditions. There are also the consecutive fuel price increases.

Let us talk about the cost of gas. On October 13, I rose in this House to call on the Government of Quebec to regulate the price of gas in Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

I said:

The Canadian Constitution gives the provinces the authority to regulate prices. Only Prince Edward Island and Quebec have taken any action in this regard, although Newfoundland announced recently that it would look at the statute provisions that would permit it to regulate the price of gas.

Other provinces preferred to rely on market forces as the most effective means of determining the appropriate prices, while retaining the incentives that contribute to innovation and cost reduction.

The Government of Quebec has no choice: it will have to rely on the market forces and provide incentives for the people of Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

The time for study is past. It is time to get down to business—

In closing, I wish to say that the best way to placate consumers is to rely on market forces and provide incentives.

Here is an example for Abitibi—Témiscamingue: the wholesale price, including the margin of the Montreal refineries, is 25.4 cents a litre. Provincial tax represents 15.2 cents, the federal excise tax, 10 cents, and the retail profit margin, 5 cents.

Transportation, and this is important, because people say the cost of transportation to Abitibi is high, costs only 1 cent a litre. The cost without 7% GST and 7.5% PST is 8.2 cents a litre. The total cost at the pump, if competition were vigorous and effective in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, a vast region far removed from major centres, would be 64.8 cents.

On October 6, the price of regular gasoline was 75.9 cents a litre in Val d'Or. That contributed to the crisis with Quebec truckers and many residents of Abitibi, who considered themselves to be everyone's hostages.

Gas stations in Abitibi have nothing to do with this situation. They must submit to the orders of the oil companies and the Government of Quebec.

Whatever forces affect the price of gasoline, the people of remote areas like Abitibi, James Bay and Nunavik have the right to expect fair treatment in the market by the Government of Quebec. As of January 1, 2000, the entire trucking industry in Canada will be deregulated, and the sector will thus be opened up to competition among carriers from all provinces.

The Bernier report has been submitted to the Government of Quebec. The Bernier committee had to concentrate first of all on the element it felt was central and essential: the creation of scenarios and assessment of their applicability to the relationship between owner-operators and customers, as well as those elements directly related to it.

On July 21, 1998, in order to respect its commitments under the 1995 Agreement on Internal Trade, Quebec replaced its trucking legislation with the Loi concernant les propriétaires et exploitants de véhicules lourds. This act relating to the owners and operators of heavy equipment harmonizes with the federal Motor Vehicle Transport Act, 1987, which applies to trucking or motor coach companies operating out of province.

Bulk haulage in Quebec is part of a distinct economic framework under the Quebec transport act. Since 1972, the Canada Labour Code has covered independent truckers, as defined in section 3, because it considers them employees.

Quebec and Ontario are among the geographical entities with the most bilateral economic exchanges in North America. In large part, these exchanges stem from the considerable growth in Canadian exports to the United States and traffic to Ontario as an access route to Michigan, Illinois and upstate New York. For Quebec truckers, this increase in interprovincial trucking has become an important dividend of the economic deregulation of their industry.

According to the latest news, an agreement will be reached between the Canadian partners of the Quebec transport industry to reduce the hours of work of truckers.

Quebec's independent truckers feel that the reduction in the number of hours worked is a good idea from a health and safety perspective. However, they are concerned about the impact of this piecemeal approach on the income of truckers who own their vehicles. If the rate structure remains unchanged, independent or exclusive truckers will simply earn less money.

The Quebec government will have to solve the income issue. It is in the process of doing that with a committee set up with the FTQ, the CSD and the CSN. The federal government is also present. They are trying to find solutions before the year 2000.

Since the deregulation of rates and licences, in 1988, it has been very difficult for truckers to earn a decent living in the Quebec trucking industry.

During the protest and blockade organized by truckers on October 8, in Louvicourt, I met many truckers throughout the day. The important thing is to listen to them. These drivers are always alone in their trucks and they travel long distances in Quebec, the United States, Ontario, the Atlantic provinces and the rest of Canada. They are always alone and they do not have time to see all the contracts. It is often their wife who pays the bills at home and who takes care of the family.

They told me that it is about time solutions be found, because the next crisis in Quebec's trucking industry will be serious. As we know, there is a project for bulk haulage.

I have here the 1997-98 annual report of Quebec department of transport, tabled by the minister. It deals with bulk haulage, and there is currently a bill on this, Bill C-89. There will be a fight, but solutions must be found.

The Quebec transport report states:

Together with other Canadian administrations, the federal Minister of Transport decided to postpone until January 1, 2000 the provision of the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act (Bill C-19, clause 19), to give truckers enough time to adjust to a more open market.

The amendments are intended to comply with commitments Quebec made recently with other Canadian administrations to permit carriers from outside Quebec to truck within Quebec in certain sectors, primarily, wood chips and factory supply, since January 1, 1998.

As of January 1, 2000, out of province trucking firms may provide carriage within provinces without economic restriction. In the meantime, the local bulk haulage industry should restructure in preparation for deregulation.

What do we see in Bill C-89? It is no longer deregulation but regulation.

What counts today is to hear the other political parties and to see what they have to say for our friends the truckers when we meet them daily on the highway. And what is important: What are the working conditions in Quebec?

Quebec will find solutions, but finding solutions requires everyone working together. I will speak for all the people I met on October 8. It was my duty to move this motion in the House of Commons to help our friends the truckers.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, Motion No. 130 states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should explore the questions surrounding federal-provincial jurisdiction in the areas of labour law and transportation law as regards independent truckers in the province of Quebec.

First I want to start off by saying that at least to my knowledge, this is an area of provincial jurisdiction and I am not sure why we would be discussing it in this House. Second, why would we be bringing a motion into the House that is not for all of Canada?

Every single member in the House has a responsibility to look after the interests of Canada as a whole. We should not be doing it in a vacuum for just one part of the country. If there is a problem, we should be addressing it for all areas. There could be specific areas, but in my view we should not be phrasing something that is specifically targeted to one area.

Since we are on the issue of labour law, there are lots of areas we should be looking at. If there is a problem with transportation in Quebec which comes under federal jurisdiction, then we should be discussing it and I would support that. I have to admit I do not know the details, but I understand this is a provincial issue.

Let me move on to a problem within the labour laws which I think we should be looking at. We just witnessed this on the other side of the country on the British Columbia coast. The ports closed because of a labour dispute which was within the federal jurisdiction. It cost the entire economy of Canada $85 million a day. That strike of two or three weeks in British Columbia cost the economy of this country almost $1 billion. It did not need to happen.

There is a very simple solution and it is called final offer arbitration. It is something the House should look at some time in the near future. Final offer arbitration will allow collective bargaining. It allows both sides to try to resolve the dispute. That is absolutely necessary.

We should do everything we can to reach a negotiated settlement, much like the government has said before. The best option for everybody is a negotiated settlement. Failing that, if the parties are unable to come to a negotiated settlement, it is critical that we do not shut down something as vital as our ports. It is not just the $85 million a day, or the $1 billion it cost Canada's economy in two or three weeks. It also has a long lasting impact on the reputation of Canada and people look to other sources. Instead of the port of Vancouver, the busiest port in Canada—

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is all very interesting, but the member opposite knows that we are debating Motion No. 130 and, except for the first cursory remarks, I have yet to hear anything that relates to what is before us.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I will caution the hon. member to keep the debate pertinent to the motion before the House.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it says the “jurisdiction in the areas of labour law and transportation law”. What did not come under transportation, the labour law and federal jurisdiction when we looked at the ports dispute? I do not know if I could find something that was more pertinent.

What I am offering is a positive solution to a situation, one that may have helped in a situation like this. I am doing this in is a very positive context. This may offer a solution to another situation in the future.

Let me explain the process of the final offer arbitration appeal and apply it to the transportation problem the people in Quebec may be facing. It may help them out. I will use the other one as an example. If both sides come to an impasse at the end of the negotiations that would obviously be the best solution. If they cannot settle the matter, then each side puts its best offer on the table. The employer would give them the package and tell them that it was the very best offer it could make. In this case I suppose it would be the truckers who would put their very best offer on the table and the arbitrator would be forced to pick A or B, nowhere in between. The advantage to that is that both sides would again get to try to negotiate a settlement but they would have to be reasonable in their final offers. If they are too far from the line, too far from where they should be, their offer would not be selected. The arbitrator would not be allowed to cherry-pick those options. In models where this has happened, the offers have crossed over. In fact, where the employer has offered more—

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I will just suggest again that there is no strike. There is no labour unrest at this point. We are not talking about lock-outs or possible strikes, so final offer—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am afraid that is debate.

[Gary Lunn, Reform, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Let me just remind the parliamentary secretary that I am putting a solution forward, unlike the government which waits until the problem is upon it and it has cost the economy of the country a billion dollars. We should be putting up solutions before there is a problem. Here is a solution that would help labour, not just in Quebec but right across the country.

I cannot believe that the government member opposite wants to stand up and raise a point of order that the problem does not exist. Does the government have to wait for the entire country to shut down before it acts? It is incumbent upon us as members of this House to put solutions forward before the problem happens.

I will summarize the final offer arbitration solution in this case. First, it allows a negotiated settlement, the best solution.

Second, it eliminates the possibility of all strikes.

Third, it forces both sides in any dispute to be reasonable. It will not cost the economy any money because there is no possibility of a strike. Again, it would eliminate strikes forever. It supports collective bargaining.

I would only hope that government members opposite would listen to this rather than act as they did a month ago with the port strike and watch the economy collapse. They watched British Columbia and the country lose a billion dollars because of their arrogance.

We hear the Liberals stand up on ridiculous points of order failing to listen to solutions to problems because the solutions did not come from them. They have their heads stuck in the sand and refuse to recognize the problems. I think it is a disgrace that they would even stand up and make such ridiculous points of order.

I would invite them to listen to positive solutions to problems. and act rather than watch something happen and wonder why it happened. They have been sitting on their hands refusing to act on something as crucial as this.

I hope the Liberals will look at a solution like this and be willing to put forward positive solutions rather than sitting in their chairs and doing nothing as they have in the past.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Motion M-130 moved by the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik.

First I must say that, in some respects, I was very disappointed on first reading this motion. I will read it again now so that members will understand why I have a problem with it. It goes as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should explore the questions surrounding federal-provincial jurisdiction in the areas of labour law and transportation law as regards independent truckers in the province of Quebec.

Why would it be left only to the government to explore the questions surrounding federal-provincial jurisdiction in the areas of labour law and transportation law as regards independent truckers in the province of Quebec? Why is there always this desire to exclude the opposition parties with respect to such important issues? Why does this government always have this condescending attitude to parliament? Why does it want to exclude parliament?

If the member had given two minutes' thought to the wording of his motion, he would have realized that it was unacceptable. Parliament and the opposition members, particularly the Bloc Quebecois members, have a say on matters as vital as federal-provincial relations and transportation law as regards independent truckers in Quebec.

Through his motion, the member is automatically excluding the opinions and ideas of 44 members who were duly elected by the people of Quebec, and this is all the worse because the motion is directly concerned with Quebec.

Of course, the Bloc Quebecois is in total agreement with the spirit of Motion M-130, but it is out of the question that it be excluded from the study of the problems mentioned in the motion.

Why not favour a review by a committee? Why not take the opportunity to explore the issues raised by the motion, with the help of experts in the field, who would testify before the committee? The member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik seems to make light of the all important issues of Quebec's transportation industry and of transportation law as regards independent truckers in Quebec.

Let us have a closer look at the transportation industry in Quebec and Canada. In Quebec alone, trucking is a $6.25 billion industry. Therefore, members will understand why the issue is far too important to be left to the federal government.

First, it is important to mention that under section 92(3) of the Constitution Act, 1867, transportation comes mainly under the legislative authority of the provinces. This being said, in certain regards, the jurisdiction can be shared between the federal government and the provinces.

Since my time is limited, I will focus on federal powers. Briefly, the authority of the federal government in the area of labour comes from its power to regulate certain matters, which are expressly assigned to it under section 91 of the Constitutional Act, 1867, or which are expressly excluded from the authority of the provinces under section 92. These matters are national, international or provincial in nature.

Contrary to the government, the Bloc Quebecois is not making light of the trucking industry in Canada. In Canada, trucking is an industry worth close to $30 billion, that employs 400,000 people. Every year, over 20 million trucks cross the border between Canada and the United States, and over 70,000 truckers are involved in cross-border transportation. Trucks move over 70% of the value of the total exports to the United States.

Since 1991, the number of trucking companies whose revenues come for more than 40% from cross-border transportation has increased by 70%.

Considering the importance of the trucking industry both in Quebec and in Canada, it is totally justifiable for governments to want to assume their responsibilities. Quebec has assumed its responsibilities by initiating a vast reform of its labour code, including the status of independent workers.

However, the federal government, in its reform of part I of its code, preferred to stay away from clarifying the status of independent workers. Even though the problems with the trucking industry were dealt with at the provincial level in Quebec, let us not forget, and I mentioned it earlier in my speech, that a great number of truckers are governed by the Canada Labour Code.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois is asking that a parliamentary committee be set up to conduct a comprehensive study of the trucking industry, the never ending jurisdictional problems and the status of independent truckers in the province of Quebec. The member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik cannot be opposed to such an idea.

A consensus already exists among labour unions with regard to the fact that legislating at the provincial level only would not solve the problem, because trucking businesses and their clients would defy such legislation, claiming they are governed by the Canada Labour Code.

Theoretically, the federal definition of a dependent worker would allow truckers who qualify under this definition to unionize and to negotiate their working conditions through the collective bargaining process. But they would have to prove they are economically dependent on a business, which is almost impossible.

In that regard, I would like to read an excerpt from the report of the committee of experts on the status of trucker-owners, which was commissioned by the Quebec ministry of transport, and I quote:

Indeed, the jurisprudence states that for a trucker to qualify as a dependent contractor, the board would have to see economic dependence of the trucker on the client. Because truckers can work for many different clients, own several trucks and have their own employees do the work, the concept of dependent contractor does not apply in many cases.

So, the federal government will also have to assume its responsibilities and set up a parliamentary committee to consider these issues. In fact, we know that the labour minister has been approached by the executive of the Quebec union, the CSD. Unfortunately, as is often the case, the representations of the CSD were not all that successful.

It is always the same thing with the government across the way. One need only think about our bill on orphan clauses which, by the way, was introduced twice in this House. The Government of Quebec did live up to its responsibilities and is about to legislate on this crucial issue for our young people.

Quebec has created a parliamentary commission to hear everyone and anyone who has something to say about the orphan clauses. Quebec is developing a blueprint for our society by legislating on these discriminatory clauses. Here, in Ottawa, the Liberals refused to even debate our bill on orphan clauses. The federal government is much more anxious to pass legislation concerning young offenders.

There are many positive elements in the spirit of Motion M-130. The Bloc Quebecois totally agrees that the House of Commons, I repeat the House of Commons and not, as the hon. member suggests in his motion, the government, should explore in committee the questions surrounding federal-provincial jurisdiction in the areas of labour law and transportation law as regards independent truckers in Quebec.

This study is particularly crucial since, as of January 1, 2000, trucking in Canada will be deregulated, allowing competition among truckers from each and every province.

Under the circumstances, it is important that the trucking industry find a way to promote discussion among the various stakeholders and determine the conditions that would help truckers do their jobs, while considering the new climate that would be created following the upcoming deregulation and the increase in competition.

[Norman E. Doyle, Progressive Conservative, St. John's East, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have a few words to say on this particular motion.

The member's motion asks that the federal government explore the questions surrounding federal-provincial jurisdiction in the areas of labour law and transportation law as regards to independent truckers in the province of Quebec.

It is not a subject with which I am intimately familiar, so I am a bit reluctant to be any more specific than the member was in his motion.

I managed on short notice to obtain an English translation of the November 15 press release from the Quebec Coalition of Bulk Carriers and Related Business. The release states that Bill 89, recently tabled in the Quebec National Assembly, serves only to aggravate the situation between independent truckers and bulk carriers and related business. The bulk carriers' release stated that the bill would conscript them into a closed association and would create a monopoly. I can understand how any group of independent truckers might feel if faced with competing with a monopoly.

I was also able to obtain a translation of a La Presse story, dated October 22, 1999, about a pending agreement between partners in the Canadian transportation industry to reduce truckers' hours. At a recent meeting in Los Angeles it was agreed that Canadian truckers' hours would be reduced from a 15 hour day, with 13 hours of driving, to a 14 hour day. These measures were undertaken as a safety precaution against driver fatigue. This is a proposal which involves all provinces and it would take some six months to implement.

It is hoped that the U.S. would follow suit with a similar arrangement for its truckers. However, independent truck owners have concerns that decreasing the hours without an increase in their income would only force independents to try to live with less income.

Similarly, bulk carriage truckers of the Quebec Professional Truckers Association feel that simply improving the hours without addressing the income issue would only force drivers to drive faster or carry heavier loads.

The bottom line is, since the deregulation of rates and licences, it is hard to make a living in the trucking industry. The professional truckers feel that a round table among the stakeholders in the trucking industry, including the various levels of government, is the way to seek a resolution. Perhaps the member is suggesting in his motion that we explore this area of federal-provincial jurisdiction.

Fast, efficient and safe trucking is essential to the continued prosperity of the whole North American economy. Reaching this goal must involve the U.S. government, the Canadian government, the governments of the provinces and the various sectors in the trucking industry. To the extent that the member's motion will foster constructive debate and problem solving in the trucking industry, including independent truckers, I think we should support the motion.

[Judi Longfield, Liberal, Whitby—Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Motion No. 130. The motion presented by the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik calls upon the Government of Canada to explore federal-provincial jurisdictional issues in the areas of labour law and transportation law as they pertain to independent truckers in Quebec.

The hon. member is obviously very concerned about the recent protest actions of Quebec truckers and I understand his concern. I wish to commend him for bringing forward this motion. I agree that the issues being raised by the Quebec truckers are serious and ought to receive serious consideration by members.

However, I have some problem with what the member is seeking to achieve by way of his motion. I wonder, too, if the motion is premature.

Perhaps some historical background to the actions of the Quebec truckers would be helpful. About a year ago Quebec truckers started to blockade major highways in the province and border points with New Brunswick, Ontario and the United States. The truckers, mainly local bulk operators, were protesting the upcoming deregulation of the interprovincial trucking industry. They were also protesting the deregulation requirements of the NAFTA, rising fuel prices and their inability to negotiate wages and working conditions.

In response, the PQ government agreed to set up a committee of experts to study the industrial relations questions raised by the truckers. This committee was headed by a widely respected industrial relations professor and included representation from the parties involved.

There were renewed blockades in September and October 1999, after which the PQ minister of transport, Guy Chevrette, announced that round table discussions would be held to bring all parties together. Surprisingly, the PQ minister also said that 80% of the truckers, that is, 8,000 of the 10,000, fall under federal jurisdiction. How he arrived at this conclusion is not clear, and is not correct.

It should also be noted that major unions in Quebec have undertaken organizing drives among the truckers. Apparently, about 30 certification applications have been received by the Canada Industrial Relations Board from the Teamsters and the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or CSN.

From this brief historical view we learn two things. We learn first that Quebec truckers have legitimate grievances regarding the deregulation of the trucking sector, regarding their labour relations status and regarding rising fuel prices. We learn second that a process has been established to address their grievances.

If a process has in fact been set out to study the truckers' concerns, would it make sense for the Government of Canada at this time to launch the kind of examination suggested by my colleague's motion? I think not.

It may be that at some future date such a study ought to be undertaken, but I do not think the government would be doing anything useful if it were to accept the hon. member's suggestion at this point. It is better to let the process already established run its course and see where it leads.

I want to speak for a moment on the industrial relations aspect of this matter. There are at least two significant industrial relations questions. The first concerns federal jurisdiction over labour relations and working conditions encompassing any undertaking that connects a province with another province or extends beyond the limits of a province. The Canada Labour Code makes this very clear. Quebec truckers, when they travel to New Brunswick, Ontario or the U.S., fall under federal jurisdiction and, contrary to Minister Chevrette's contention, we do not yet know how many Quebec truckers do this.

Second, in his motion the member uses the phrase “independent truckers” to refer to the protesting truckers. Again, we do not yet know who are the independent truckers and who are dependent truckers. The Canada Labour Code states that the definition of employee includes dependent contractors, and the term dependent contractor includes owner-operators of trucks who work under contract to employees in the federal jurisdiction. The code permits employees, including dependent contractors, to unionize for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment with their employer.

On the other hand, truck drivers who are self-employed and who are independent owners of their vehicles are not considered to be employees under the federal labour code and therefore cannot benefit from its provisions.

These are two key issues that must be sorted out if a durable solution acceptable to all stakeholders is to be found. The member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik and I, I am sure, are in agreement here. Where we differ is how to sort out what is being done.

In my view, the Canada Industrial Relations Board is the appropriate body to determine whether a person is a dependent or an independent contractor and whether he or she is working for an employer in the federal jurisdiction. As I mentioned, there are about 30 certification applications from Quebec unions being reviewed by the board. I have great confidence in the board's capacity to come up with the right decisions on these applications.

The committee of experts which was established by the PQ government, to which I referred earlier, submitted some important recommendations regarding industrial relations in the trucking sector. The PQ government will need to consider these recommendations very carefully.

The committee recommended that the right of association be granted to owner-operators and that the Quebec labour code recognize the self-employed truckers' right of association. Also, this committee recommended that round table discussions be held to study the problem of the industry.

Two sessions have already been held and it appears that all stakeholders involved in the trucking sector are prepared to work hard to come up with ways to address their issues. Representatives from Transport Canada and the labour program of Human Resources Development Canada were present, as were representatives from the union and major trucking associations. This group is expected to issue a report on its deliberations next month.

The point I am trying to stress is simply that a two track process is already in place that deals with the legitimate concerns of my hon. friend. We have the CIRB process and the process set up by the PQ government. Perhaps I could prevail upon my colleague to be a bit more patient.

I shall end by commending my friend and colleague for bringing forth his motion and drawing our attention to the problems of Quebec truckers. It seems to me that at this time all that should be done is being done. I do not think that further federal involvement is called for at this point, but like the member I shall be following the matter very closely and will call for additional federal action should it further warrant.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

As no other member wishes to speak, I will now give the floor to the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik for his right of reply. This will put an end to the debate.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very happy to see that opposition members are here to comment on my motion, even at this late hour, which means that there are good things in there.

The Reform Party's position is that this is a provincial matter. There is one thing I should say from the start. On October 25, 1998, two Quebec ministers signed an agreement with truckers when we had the first crisis, the first blockade.

The second point in this agreement talks about assessing the problem of the federal-provincial jurisdictions in labour law and transport law. The agreement was signed by both Minister Brassard and Minister Rioux. These two ministers told the truckers “Both sides must reassess the problem”.

But coming back to federal-provincial matters, on October 8, I was on the picket line with the truckers. On October 10, I was watching the RDI network when I saw my good friend Guy Chevrette, just back from Europe, make the following statement “You should go to the federal government. The trucking issue is a federal matter”.

I understand that my good friend Guy Chevrette—

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is supposed to be a federal issue, but the member is talking only about Quebec. If he wants to debate it in the national assembly, I have no problem with that, but we are here—

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Thibeault)]

Order, please. I do not think this is a point of order, and we are getting into debate.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understood what the hon. member said earlier. They have millionaires living in the Mont-Tremblant and upper Laurentian regions. We do not in Abitibi.

The Bloc Quebecois member voiced her disappointment with my motion, and said I should have taken a couple of minutes to think about it. The fact is that I took four.

I have here remarks made by Guy Chevrette on RDI on October 10 or thereabouts. He said “Go to the feds. They are the ones concerned”. I have notes here on my desk. I understand that he is a good pitcher because he has thrown a strike ball to the federal team. He also indicated that out of the 10,000 truckers concerned, 8,000 were subject to federal legislation and these ought to approach Ottawa to find some ways of getting around their inability to negotiate with their employer. I have notes on this here and it is important to know this.

I understand that the member for Laurentides would want all members to get involved. I agree with what she said about the need for a committee to be struck. That is a good point. But I did not appreciate her saying that I ought to have given it two minutes' thought.

In the current situation, it is impossible to confirm that 80% of the truckers in question come under the jurisdiction of the federal government until the Canada Labour Relations Board has finished its investigation and dealt with the demands of the third parties currently before it, which are to have Quebec truckers granted union certification.

The board will have to determine whether the truckers are employees, dependent contractors or independent contractors and, in the first two instances, if their employer is governed by federal legislation. Demands are being investigated and the date of the board's response is not known.

Another thing is really important. We must stand by the truckers. I appreciate the comments made by my colleagues tonight, even though we may disagree.

Of course, we could deal with the concerns of the truckers about working conditions, for instance, higher pay through collective bargaining, if union certification were granted, but there is nothing we can do, at the labour relations level, about the price of gasoline and the deregulation of interprovincial trucking as of January 1, 2000, pursuant to section 19 of the Agreement on Internal Trade Implementation Act.

What is important to remember, and I appreciate it, is that hon. members from the Reform Party, the Bloc, the Progressive Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have all taken part in this debate. At least, the issue is being addressed and things should look up for independent truckers of Quebec and their families. Solutions will be found, whether they come from Quebec, Canada or Ontario.

What is important here is to defend the truckers we see every day on roads and highways. I am proud of having put this motion forward.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

There being no further members rising for debate and the motion not being designated as a votable item, the time provided for the consideration of Private Member's Business has expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Michelle Dockrill, NDP, Bras D'Or, NS]

Madam Speaker, the government has repeatedly refused to face the truth about the economic and social crisis developing in Cape Breton. This crisis is the direct result of its inability to show leadership and provide a sincere commitment to the people of the island. Not only is there an obvious lack of commitment to Cape Bretoners but the government continues to allow misinformation about the reality of the crisis to permeate.

Contrary to what one of my colleagues in the House proclaimed last week during the debate on Bill C-11 that unemployment rates were declining in Cape Breton, the reality of the matter is that unemployment is rising in Cape Breton with unofficial rates of over 30%.

The government's best effort to create jobs has been to encourage the conditions that often create low paying, part time, contractual jobs with no benefits. Nova Scotians are falling deeper into poverty with the average poor family living almost $6,000 below the low income cutoff level. The Nova Scotia report card issued yesterday by Campaign 2000 reports that 67.8% of families without full time, full year employment are living in poverty. The same report card states that Nova Scotia children are doing better than the average Cape Breton child. Thanks to the Liberal government's generous cuts to EI benefits, less than half of Nova Scotians who are unemployed receive EI benefits.

Sadly, the government's inability to act has been the only consistency in the lives of the children of Cape Bretoners since 1993. We continue to face a crisis of increasing proportions. Coastal communities have suffered greatly from the devastation of the ground fishing industry. Devco's being shut down has already caused the loss of well over 1,000 direct jobs. Rural Cape Bretoners are being stripped of jobs, the most recent example being the reallocation of HRDC jobs from Port Hawkesbury to more urban areas.

This is the reality the children of Cape Breton face every day: poverty, job losses, a government that just does not care. What else could possibly explain why Cape Bretoners have been made into economic refugees at the hands of their own government?

The government would have us believe that the road show masquerading as a fair and fully participatory panel that is to decide the future of Cape Breton is somehow going to make everything rosy again. The government cannot really expect that the people of Cape Breton will accept this rushed and obviously partisan panel as an appropriate response by the government that is legally obligated to take all reasonable measures to reduce economic hardship. This crisis will not be solved overnight.

Given that the policies of the government continue to put their parents out of work, what other message does this send to the sons and daughters of Cape Bretoners except that in the eyes of the Liberal government they just don't count?