Dale Johnston

[Canada Labour Code, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I support the overall intent of Bill C-35 because it makes at least a tentative move toward the elimination of outdated regulations. It is a step in the right direction. It shows the provinces that the Government of Canada is willing to recognize, at least in part, their ability to make sound financial and humanitarian laws.

However, the bill has one glaring flaw. As I mentioned during second reading debate and as my colleague from Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia said yesterday, section 178(3) gives the cabinet the power to set rates if it disagrees with the rates established by the provinces or territories.

We proposed an amendment which would remove this clause and give full jurisdiction over minimum wage rates to the provinces. Surprisingly, though, members of the official opposition did not support our amendment. I can only assume that they are really not in favour of giving more autonomy to the province of Quebec in labour matters. That surprises me. I have always been under the assumption that the devolution of powers was something that was very near and dear to their hearts.

Government members also refused to support our amendment, showing that they are really not sincere about giving more responsibilities to the provinces. Instead, the government continues to waffle on the issue of decentralization. Like parents who try to prolong their kid's childhood, this Liberal government is refusing to acknowledge that the provinces have come of age. Not surprisingly, this is contrary to the red book promise.

Broken promise No. 14 reads: "A Liberal government will work closely with provincial governments to reduce duplication and improve service delivery in all areas where governments are involved".

By clinging to the "Father Knows Best" tradition, the government is failing to live up to yet another campaign promise.

With this bill, the government is implying that it wants to better the lot of workers yet it stubbornly clings to the old myths. It wants wage earners to believe that by retaining the right to set minimum wage rates that it has their best interests at heart. It is just like it wants workers to believe that somehow governments can create jobs.

A study released this week by a Halifax based think tank concludes that large increases in regional subsidies to Atlantic Canada have had a perverse effect, retarding economic growth rather than spurring it.

After 30 years of failure, people from coast to coast are recognizing that the policies promoted by this Liberal government have increased the debt load on Canadians and on the federal treasury, a double whammy. So much for red book promises.

If the Liberal government is really sincere about keeping at least the red book promise or the throne speech pledge of cutting red tape and ending duplication, now is the time to show good faith and give the provinces the sole governance over minimum wage rates. If the spirit of co-operation really exists, section 178(3) can be deleted and a memorandum of understanding negotiated to ensure that provinces maintain reasonable minimum wage standards. This would protect Canada's international commitments and free trade agreements.

Today of all days, on the first anniversary of the Quebec referendum, the government should be aware of the need to initiate some form of decentralization of some federal powers. The fact that the Prime Minister ignored the unity issue last year almost resulted in the break up of the country. The government must now recognize that the status quo will no longer keep Canada together.

The Reform Party has a plan which we think would be acceptable to all Canadians. In recognition of the need for decentralization, we developed a bottom up agenda for change that does not require amending the Constitution. The Reform Party's fresh start platform commits us to rebalancing powers, moving governmental responsibility closer to the people and strengthening Canada's federal nature and institutions.

As long as the government insists on retaining the right to revert to cabinet decreed minimum wage rates, the Reform Party cannot support this bill.

[Canada Labour Code, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve has put forth a motion that calls for the government to give RCMP officers the right to

unionize and to bargain collectively under an act other than the Canada Labour Code.

Of course, he claims to have the best interests of the members of the RCMP at heart, and perhaps we should accept that at face value.

However, we would have to wonder if it is not just a small group of people with personal agendas who he is really out to represent today.

We also have to wonder what the hon. member thinks the RCMP stands to gain from what he has proposed here today. He contends that his motion was a follow up to the Sims report. However, let me read what the recommendation actually states on page 50 of the report:

The government should undertake a process to determine the appropriateness of RCMP officers having the right to organize and to engage in collective bargaining under a statute separate from the Canada Labour Code. Such a process should consider the interests of the members of the RCMP, existing associations of members, management and the public.

Let me say that the Reform Party supports the traditional role of the RCMP as a police force representative of and responsive to the population it serves in Canada's regions. The Reform Party also recognizes the right of workers to organize democratically, bargain collectively and to strike peacefully. However, there is an important distinction to be made between private and public sector collective bargaining.

Strikes in the private sector of course may cause some inconvenience to the public but they are primarily a contest between the employer and the employees. The employer loses profits, the employees lose wages and both sides know that either a prolonged strike or a bad agreement could put the enterprise out of business and could put the employees out of jobs. Incentives exist for both sides to seek a settlement in good faith.

The situation in the public sector is quite different. Because of the monopolistic nature of most public services like the RCMP, alternatives are not readily available in the marketplace.

Is the hon. member, through his motion, proposing that the RCMP should be given the right to strike? He knows all too well that the aim of a public sector is to inconvenience or even endanger the public in the hope that citizens will persuade or pressure the public employer to give into the union's demands. He knows that governments usually do not lose money in a strike. In fact, they save money by not having to pay their employees' wages during the duration of the strike.

Moreover, the member knows that the government plays two conflicting roles. It is not only a player in the collective bargaining process, it is also the supreme rule maker.

As we have witnessed time and again in this House, the government ends public sector strikes by legislating workers back to work. Is that what the member would like to see happen? I rather doubt it.

Members have heard me say repeatedly in the House that the Reform Party supports the final offer selection arbitration process when management impasses jeopardize health, safety or the national economy.

Finally, often arbitration gives labour and management the tools to resolve their differences. Final offer selection does not favour one side over the other and it eliminates the need for government interference in the negotiations. It puts the onus on both sides to reach an agreement and it can be used equally by labour or management to provide a permanent, just and effective settlement.

In preparation for this debate, I contacted members of the RCMP stationed in detachments throughout my constituency to find out what they thought about unions and the bargaining process. I found that there was zero support or enthusiasm for the creation of unions from within the ranks of the RCMP. I think that is a very important element to be considered in debating a bill of this type.

Last year, when RCMP officers appeared before the subcommittee on government operations, they testified that out of the over 1,000 members in Manitoba, only 15 wanted to unionize. In British Columbia, 156 RCMP officers, out of a possible 4,600, attended a meeting organized by union proponents to discuss organizing and half of those 156 left the meeting before it ended.

There is a mechanism within the RCMP to deal with labour-management issues that is part of the RCMP Act regulations. The division staff relations representative program, or DSRR program, has been in place for 20 years and it enjoys the support of the vast majority of members of the force. The officers in each division across the country elect at least one full time representative and two part time representatives.

The RCMP members serving in detachments throughout my constituency indicated to me that they are satisfied with this current arrangement.

Since there is virtually no support in the RCMP for a union, the hon. member's motion seems to me somewhat unnecessary. His efforts and energies might be directed to other areas deserving of his immediate attention. He should be suggesting ways for the government to reduce the debt, eliminate the deficit, balance the budget, give taxpayers like those hard working members of the RCMP a tax break that they most certainly deserve.

If the hon. member is concerned with the plight of the RCMP he would be willing to call for a tougher Young Offenders Act. I believe it would be very frustrating for an RCMP officer to

continually collar these people who are given a rap on the knuckles and then turned loose.

The hon. member would be advocating a get tough on crime agenda like the zero tolerance policies the Reform Party is proposing. He would be calling for a referendum on capital punishment for first degree murder for those who kill police officers and find out if there is support, and I suggest there is, in Canada for exactly that, capital punishment for first degree murder.

If the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve were really interested in the well-being of RCMP officers, he would focus on issues that are of concern to the members of the force, concerns that we hear when talking to the members of the force on a daily basis.

[Jake And The Kid Go To Alberta, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you and many members of this House will remember the popular 1950s radio broadcasts of W.O. Mitchell's award winning short stories "Jake and the Kid". The stories chronicled the adventures of the Kid, 11-year old Ben Osborne, in the fictitious prairie town of Crocus, Saskatchewan.

The story has been brought to life again in a 13-week television series filmed in my constituency of Wetaskiwin. Now in its second season, "Jake and the Kid" is wholesome family entertainment and a tribute to Alberta's growing film industry.

Albertans figure prominently in the cast, crew and writers. In fact, 90 per cent of the cast and all the extras are Albertans, including Ben's best friend and mentor, the hired hand Jake, played by hometown boy Shaun Johnston.

Sets depicting the Osborne family farm and mainstreet Crocus have been constructed on 160 acres of land in the district of Glenpark, Leduc County.

This exceptional Canadian production with its warmth, humour, intriguing plots and off-beat characters is proof that Alberta can soon lay claim to the title of Hollywood North.

[Petitions, June 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I have a further petition. Some 25 petitioners pray that Parliament enact Bill C-205 introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West at the earliest opportunity so as to provide in Canadian law that no criminal profits from committing a crime.

[Petitions, June 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure to present a petition from 170 of my constituents. They pray and request that Parliament direct Health Canada to amend its proposal in order to allow the production and sale of unpasteurized cheese to continue in Canada.

[Canada Labour Code, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the terms of the bill before us are under the guise of giving more powers to the provinces. If it did that, I would be all for it, but I suppose Bill C-35 is a small step toward eliminating useless, outdated regulations. The Canada Labour Code covers less than one million workers.

In 1986, the last time there was a change to the federal minimum wage, only one-tenth of one per cent or roughly 7,000 workers under federal jurisdiction were directly affected. While updated estimates are not available from department officials, there is a presumption that little has changed in that length of time.

In 1935, Canada ratified the ILO Minimum Wage Fixing Machinery Convention, 1928, which specified that workers would be guaranteed a minimum wage in cases where wages were exceptionally low.

It was 1965 before Canada actually began setting minimum wage rates. Since the provinces regulate over 99 per cent of Canadian minimum wage earners, there was not much need for expediency. Since there have been only sporadic changes in the rates since 1965, it is evident that the federal minimum wage is not necessary.

Back in the 1930s an argument may have been made to justify a minimum wage in some countries to ensure that workers were not taken advantage of by single industry employers.

There is a general misconception that without a minimum wage workers would be exploited. Employers want the best workers available and often compete to hire them. Low wages often show there is an abundance of workers available, which is just an example of the supply and demand concept.

The minimum wage, rather than bringing the poverty level up, has the reverse effect. It encourages exploitation. It protects highly trained, well paid workers against competition from the young who lack experience and the unskilled people who require on the job training.

Unions, whose mandate it is to protect jobs and increase the wages of its members, support minimum wage rates to protect themselves from cheaper or trainee labour. Naturally, when asked to respond to the initiative aligning federal minimum wage rates with provincial rates, labour groups wanted the federal government to show leadership by maintaining a single rate that is higher than the provincial and territorial minimum wages.

Business groups, on the other hand, indicated the change would have virtually no impact on their operations as the lowest paid wages were competitive with and generally higher than the provincial wage rates.

In the last 10 years Canada has entered into international trade agreements with the U.S. and Mexico which include labour co-operation. There were also agreements with the provinces to cover the provisions of these accords.

If a minimum wage is deemed to be necessary to meet international agreements and conventions, the government could guarantee the continued existence of a minimum wage by concluding federal-provincial agreements on minimum wage rates. This would eliminate the perceived necessity of section 178(2) which gives the governor in council power to set rates should it disagree with the rate set by a province or territory.

The Minister of Natural Resources boasted a new spirit of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments to an Edmonton group last week. If this spirit of co-operation really exists, section 178(2) can be deleted. The understanding works out to ensure that the provinces maintain reasonable minimum wage standards.

High wages cannot be decreed but must be arrived at through years of experience in the workplace. In the nineties, advances in human rights, collective bargaining and consumer awareness make minimum wages, especially in the federal context, irrelevant.

[Petitions, June 12th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to table a petition signed by approximately 71 members of the constituency of Wetaskiwin.

The petitioners pray and call on Parliament to enact Bill C-205, introduced by the hon. member for Scarborough West, at the earliest opportunity so as to provide in Canadian law that no criminal profits from committing a crime.

[Petitions, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, 255 petitioners pray and request that Parliament direct Health Canada to amend its proposal in order to allow the production and sale of unpasturized cheese to continue in Canada.

[Petitions, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present two petitions.

In the first petition, 53 petitioners pray and request that Parliament oppose any amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act or any other federal legislation that will provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.

[Liberal Party, May 31st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government has a red book full of broken promises. It has

reneged on pledges to kill the GST, renegotiate NAFTA, reform MP pensions and provide stable multi-year funding for the CBC.

Its throne speeches promised to reduce federal-provincial duplication and overlap, and yet it clings to control and meddles in areas better left to the provinces.

Vancouver waterfront workers have to bear the brunt of federal inaction. They receive safety training from the province where modern standards and up to date regulations prevail, but B.C. regulations are unenforceable because these workers are still subject to ten year old federal health and safety laws. Union negotiators were so concerned for the safety of their members they won the right for injured employees to be treated by provincial occupational first aid attendants.

The government should seize the opportunity to practise real flexible federalism and provide health and safety to Canadian workers. This is a chance for the government to live up to at least one of its commitments.