Stan Keyes

[Maintenance Of Railway Operations Act, 1995, March 25th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is my duty and privilege to rise and speak to Bill C-77, an act to provide for the maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services.

I wish to address my concerns to the railway employees who may be watching this important debate. For the reasons enunciated so clearly by the Minister of Labour, the Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Industry, the service you, the railway workers and management, provide is the lifeline and key component of the country's extensive transportation infrastructure.

You supply a vital service for the industrial trade and agricultural sectors of our growing economy. We in the House can appreciate concerns for your personal finances, but would you disagree with this member for Hamilton West when I say that the best job security you can have is to work for a company that makes a profit.

The economic impact of the current rail strike has been made painfully clear to each and every one of us. We hear of it in our ridings. We see the impact on the operations of a broad range of large and small industries and employers.

In its opposition to the legislation, the Bloc Quebecois is parochially principled. The official opposition is pretending that it is acting in the interest of collective bargaining rights by criticizing the mediation and arbitration provisions of Bill C-77, the merits of which have not been questioned by the stakeholders.

By perpetuating this kind of navel gazing, the official opposition is not only missing the entire point of the legislation, it is also thumbing its nose at the real concerns of both labour and management.

While the opposition's thinly veiled political agenda continues to cripple the Canadian economy, 2,500 Canadian auto workers at Ford's St. Thomas, Ontario plant have been sent home because of shortages. Three thousand, nine hundred Canadian auto workers at Oakville and Windsor were forced to work half time this week. Seventy thousand commuters in Montreal and Toronto are lined up on the highways and at the bus stations facing long delays getting to and from work. Not to mention it is estimated the national rail strike could end up costing this great country, a country in a period of growth, $3 to $5 billion by the time it is finally resolved.

In the same way that railway employees and management would like to stabilize their labour related economic circumstances, we in government must do everything we can to stabilize the nation's economy. In short, from an economic standpoint we have to be productive to survive. It is that simple.

The transportation critic for the Bloc Quebecois went beet red in the face a few moments ago decrying the economic advantages of management. I agree with the opposition critic. They

are outrageous but there are two sides to that story. There are two sides to every story.

He conveniently forgets about the 600 employees on full salary who are not working under the current arrangement. If CN needs 250 employees in Calgary, not one of the 600 fully salaried, non-working employees in the east can be moved to Calgary to fill those jobs.

[Rail Strike, March 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my complete and utter disappointment with the members of the official opposition and the members of the NDP. They have seen fit to allow the people of Canada to be economically devastated as a direct result of their unwillingness to co-operate with the government and its attempts to end the crippling effects of a national rail strike.

It is estimated that the national rail strike could end up costing Canada $3 billion to $5 billion.

Certainly members can appreciate the necessity of the back to work legislation tabled by the Minister of Labour on Tuesday. Even the president of the Canadian Auto Workers Union states that there is "absolutely no advantage or reason for them"-the opposition-"to delay the legislation".

Given the economic harm this strike has already brought to the people of Canada and in particular the good people of Ontario, Quebec and the western provinces, I implore members opposite to set aside their petty politics long enough to act in the public interest for their constituents and to put an immediate end to the chaos caused by the national rail strike.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, that is an appropriate question and I thank the hon. member for it. Coming from Hamilton, Stelco and Dofasco are two very familiar names. The lifeline of the steel industry in my home town and the rest of the communities along that Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway is that seaway.

If we leave it the way it is the hon. member knows full well it will collapse on itself and we will not have a seaway. The status quo does not work. We have to find a new way. We have to find a way to make that system stand on its own feet and be competitive in a global economy and give the stakeholders of that system the opportunity to play a greater role in how that system works.

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

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure of the hon. member's background. Do not take my word for it; let us go to the experts.

How about Fred Ketchen, chairman of the board of the Toronto Stock Exchange who states: "It seems to me that the fellas at Moody's and the other bond rating services will be encouraged by what they heard the finance minister say today in what I would assess as being a responsible, a fair, a realistic, and even a humane budget".

Let us go back to the chartered accountants, the group that represents the chartered accountants of Canada, the 55,000 accountants. They support the restructuring of transfer payments to the provinces and the decision to build more flexibility into Canada's educational and social program transfers to provinces with the creation of the Canada social transfer program. This is precisely what this member has been concerned about.

The Reform Party in its questions talks status quo. Before the budget it came out with this ridiculous plan to cut everything; gone in two years: "We are going to put them in sleeping bags in the streets across Canada, but we are going to get that budget deficit down to zero". That is not the way it is going to be with the government. The government does it fairly and equitably and it is going to work. With our two-year rolling plan the House is going to be full of Liberals after the next federal election.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1995-96, March 20th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour on behalf of the constituents of Hamilton West to speak on Bill C-73, an act to provide borrowing authority for the upcoming fiscal year, and by logical extension the firm but fair budget tabled on February 27 by my hon. colleague the Minister of Finance.

In keeping with the principles of fairness as promised in the 1995 budget, it reflects the government's desire to cut the deficit primarily through spending cuts rather than massive tax increases, as suggested by the third party. This is substantiated by the fact that over the next three years there will be $7 in spending cuts for every dollar in new tax increases. Consequently the budget will have an enormous impact on Canada's ongoing economic recovery.

It should also be noted that in the process of creating the 1995 budget, the minister took care to obtain the input of Canadians right across this country. This was done by means of the prebudget hearings conducted by the Standing Committee on Finance.

These hearings were held in cities throughout Canada, including my hometown of Hamilton. I am proud to say that almost 90 per cent of the recommendations of the finance committee were accepted by the Minister of Finance and are reflected in the 1995 budget.

As chairperson of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport, I should also mention that our committee is currently assisting the Minister of Transport with a comprehensive marine review. As indicated in a recent post-budget document released by Transport Canada, "Transport Canada's New Direction and the 1995 Budget", the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport is holding extensive consultations on the future of Canada's marine sector. It plans to submit a report of recommendations by the end of April.

The review focuses on identifying inefficiencies in the Canadian marine system and eliminating unnecessary and counterproductive waste and mismanagement in the marine sector. This will also help eliminate unnecessary federal government expenditures by examining ways to provide competitive and efficient marine services as part of an integrated transportation system.

The finance minister went to great lengths to accommodate the opinions expressed to him directly and indirectly by his parliamentary colleagues as well.

On January 6, I issued an open letter to the Minister of Finance on behalf of the constituents of Hamilton West imploring him not to increase personal income tax. Prior to the tabling of the budget we were on a break. When walking through the malls, on the streets or stopping in a coffee shop, my constituents told me that increasing personal income tax would impose an insurmountable burden on many low to middle income families. They also said it could have an adverse effect on federal revenue targets by creating an added incentive for underground economic activity.

Clearly, the Minister of Finance listened to Canadians as far as personal income tax is concerned. We did not see a hike in personal income tax in this budget. This budget is firm in its commitment to cutting government fat, but fair in sparing the flesh of essential government initiatives designed to stimulate economic growth and job creation in this country.

The notion of budget fairness is reflected in the minister's willingness to address the historically lopsided personal income tax contributions made by individual tax paying Canadians versus the amount contributed by large profitable corporations. In the last three decades the corporate share of total taxes collected by government has fallen while the share collected from individual taxpayers has almost doubled. In light of that fact, the 1995 federal budget also includes key measures designed to establish a fair and balanced system of taxation.

For example, there will be an increase in the corporate surtax from 3 per cent to 4 per cent, as well as a 12.5 per cent increase in the large corporations tax. Furthermore, in a year when major Canadian banks reported record profits in the billions, the 1995 budget imposes an immediate increase in the existing tax on capital of banks and other large deposit taking institutions.

For the edification of the naysayers across the way, it is worthwhile to consider the opinions expressed by various reputable organizations and individuals across the nation who have expressed their support for the measures announced in the 1995 budget.

Let us go to the editorial in the Wall Street Journal : ``Canada's bold budget ought to be an inspiration to other countries struggling with overextended governments''. This is for the naysayers across. We have been listening to the Reform Party go on and on about how terrible this budget is, how awful this government is and how we do not know what we are doing.

All that is outweighed by the people who do know a little something about economics and I am sure they are not Reformers. An editorial in the Financial Times of the U.K. says: ``The Canadian budget announced on Monday brings the country back from the brink of fiscal disaster. Mr. Paul Martin, the finance minister, appears to have achieved a skilful balance between the increasingly onerous demands of investors and those of his constituents''.

An excerpt from a Reuters AFP news report in The Strait Times , Singapore's most widely read daily, states: ``Economists praised the government's efforts generally, saying it was perhaps the first serious attempt by a Canadian government to get a handle on spending''. I know that one-half of the former Tory government who is sitting in the House today would appreciate a remark like that.

How about William Dudley, an economist with Goldman Sachs, who stated on CBC Radio: "In the end you would have to say that the government has definitely gotten the message that this consolidation is required and the financial markets, I think, have to reward Canada for that". That is pretty good stuff for the government.

If that were not enough, the budget has also been endorsed by the Chartered Accountants of Canada, an organization representing 55,000 chartered accountants. It seems reasonable to assume that these people would know a thing or two about getting one's fiscal house in order. What are they saying? The Chartered Accountants, the 55,000 represented, state: "We are pleased that finance minister Paul Martin has cut spending in significant ways. In particular, the seven to one ratio of cuts in spending to taxes should signal to investors that government is addressing our fiscal situation".

Here is the one I like: "We are very pleased to note the government has not taken any drastic measures to impede the ability of Canadians to save for their own retirements. The budget brought down challenges Canadians to continue to seek to redefine the appropriate role and scope of governments as essential steps toward fiscal stability".

That is something we can be proud of. Despite the previously stated, let us say, expert opinions in the province of Ontario, Premier Bob Rae has been playing Chicken Little with the federal budget. According to that premier, the sky has been falling in Canada since February 27 when the federal budget was tabled in this House.

In response to this government's attempt to finally get this nation's fiscal house in order, Rae states that the budget will bring about "a historic change that literally ends the Canada that we have known and sets us on a much meaner course". This comes from a man who clearly knows little or nothing about managing public funds.

It is worth noting that in 1991 Ontario's accumulated provincial debt was 15.5 per cent of Ontario's GDP. This spring, Ontario's debt is expected to balloon to almost 30.5 per cent of provincial GDP. Clearly if the sky is falling, it is falling on the provincial NDP government in Ontario.

In closing, for all the doom and gloom of those who may be questioning the character of the Liberal government and in fact Liberalism itself, I quote a great Canadian and a former Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier who once said: "I am a Liberal. I am one of these who thinks that everywhere in human terms there are abuses to be reformed, new horizons to be opened up, and new forces to be developed".

I am proud to say that this government is holding true to that enlightened Liberal vision.

[Kids Help Phone, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Kids Help Phone. This non-profit service was started by the Canadian Children's Foundation back in 1989. Since then Kids Help Phone, which offers 24-hour bilingual counselling service to troubled youth, has grown tremendously. Kids Help Phone receives over 3,000 calls a day from frightened, lonely and often abused children.

Just last month Kids Help Phone received an astonishing 2,041 calls from troubled youth in my home town of Hamilton. Unfortunately, however, Kids Help Phone only has enough staff and telephone lines to handle about one-quarter of the calls. Who knows what kind of a crisis each one of those unaddressed calls for help might entail on a daily basis?

Although Kids Help Phone does not solicit government funding, I call upon my colleagues in the House to lend their support and raise awareness of the Kids Help Phone line 1-800-668-6868. After all, helping a young person in trouble can make a difference that will last a lifetime.

[Grain Export Protection Act, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Hamilton West, I have the privilege to speak to Bill C-262, the grain export protection act introduced by the member for Lethbridge.

This bill seeks to make it illegal for anyone, employee or employer, to cause any cessation of work at any stage of the progress of grain from the premises of the producer of the grain all the way to export. It should be obvious that this bill would affect a large number of Canadians, indeed everybody who comes near grain, from the farmer who grows the grain to those on the trains and ships which carry the grain.

At this time I want to focus on one particular aspect of this bill and what it brings to the labour relations atmosphere with the government's own employees. That is the provision in this bill which would amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act by adding new criteria limiting the right to strike.

This bill seeks to add to the Public Service Staff Relations Act in section 2 and section 78(1) words which would have the effect of prohibiting employees from engaging in any strike activity in areas related to the orderly progress of grain from the premises of the producer of the grain to export.

When the Public Service Staff Relations Act was introduced almost 30 years ago, the legislators included a unique concept to labour legislation. That was the notion of designating employees as essential and denying them the right to strike. That is to say that employees whose duties included functions which were performed in the interests of the safety and/or security of the Canadian public could not engage in a strike. If one was to search the Canada Labour Code or other labour codes, one would not find many examples of such a concept.

In my opinion this is a good, reasonable and justifiable concept. Employees of the federal government and numerous other federal institutions should not be in a position to withdraw services which would cause harm to the safety or security of Canadians. This provision has stood the test of time.

When public servants engage in a strike activity a number of their colleagues continue to work and provide essential services to the public. The last public service strike provided us with many examples of this particular provision.

Both air and marine search and rescue operations continued. Ice breaking continued. Mariners' charts and maps continued to be produced and updated. The all important function of providing notices to shipping carried on. As well, fisheries patrols were maintained and employees involved in this function continued to provide a service to the public.

Air operations continued and airport facilities were maintained. Weather observations continued. Forecasts were prepared and communicated to the users and of great comfort, notification bulletins affecting aviation safety continued to be produced and disseminated.

Naturally, prison guards and correctional services are deemed as essential services and continued to perform their tasks. All those employees, including those who provide care and security for inmates, medical care, food, heating and all those functions necessary to maintain the system continued to perform their duties.

Health care was maintained by designated employees in such areas as poison control, hazardous product identification, medical support at federal hospitals, ambulance drivers, and dental and chronic care in isolated areas. Also designated were some employees who were involved in research related to health care which used laboratory animals.

Essential to Canadians, income security programs such as UI, family allowance and the Canada pension plan continued. This included the processing of new claims as well as the issuance of benefits.

Employees involved in customs and immigration control remained on the job. Included among these essential jobs were employees responsible for the primary inspection of meat and fish products imported to this country.

Not surprisingly, the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act also precluded those involved with national security from striking. Included among those were the civilian federal employees who provide support to RCMP operations.

Of interest to my colleagues in this place, parliamentary operations were designated as an essential service. Hansard continued to be printed, along with committee reports and other parliamentary publications. Simultaneous translation services also continued to be offered.

These are some examples of the services considered as essential for the safety and security of the public and for which the public service employees could not withdraw services. The central theme throughout this list is: These services are essential for the safety and security of the Canadian public.

It is evident that the current provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act have by and large served the Canadian public well. By tinkering with these provisions and including the notion of economic hardship in the grain industry, are we trying to fix what ain't broke?

It is an unfortunate but accepted reality that strikes will cause inconvenience and maybe even economic hardship to some. However, if we are to accept that employees have the right to strike to put pressure on the employer, then we must accept the results. If it is our view that strikes should not cause hardship to anyone, then it is my suggestion that all strikes be declared illegal.

This bill starts along that road. It is headed in a direction that can only bring grief to employer-employee relations in this country. I would not argue that the movement of grain is not important to Canadians. Obviously it is, but I do not believe the production or movement of grain is essential for the safety or security of the public.

The movement of grain is, like other commercial activities, an important economic activity in this country. If we were to introduce the idea that there can be no strikes or lockouts in the grain industry, which sector would be next? Would it be the auto industry? The shipping industry? How about forestry services? In a certain section of the country, ore production is extremely important. Should we consider banning work stoppages there too?

If we are able to use economic criteria, I am confident that every member of this House could cite an enterprise worthy of consideration for a bill such as this. I would like to remind members that in many jurisdictions police services are given the opportunity to withdraw from their jobs. Medical practitioners and teachers also have this ability.

As I mentioned, if we accept that employees have the right to strike and to exert pressure on their employer, then they must be permitted to do so. The introduction of a provision in the Public Service Staff Relations Act prohibiting strikes in any one specific area, be it grain handling or some other industry, begins to erode this right. Employees either have the right to strike or they do not. The provision restricting the right to strike in the federal public service to those performing services essential for the safety and security of the public is a restriction, but I think it can be reasonably argued.

In addition, this provision has been in place for almost 30 years and still allows the public service employees to withdraw services. As we saw during the last public service strike, employees still have the ability to exert considerable pressure on the employer.

Times, they are achanging. We have to roll with change. I do not feel the way to begin a positive and co-operative renewal of labour relations is by introducing legislation which begins to erode what labour considers a basic right. If we are going to give labour the right to withdraw services in order to exert pressure in collective bargaining, then we must allow this withdrawal of service to have some effect.

I am sure the member for Lethbridge did not intend anything sinister but was simply advancing a proposal that would protect the interests of the grain industry. While the reasons for desiring protection from strikes or lockouts are noble in themselves, we must look at how we propose to do this and the results such a proposal would bring.

While I agree with the member that the grain industry is an important aspect of this country, as many other industries are, I cannot accept the notion that Parliament legislates protection at the expense of the rights of other Canadian citizens. Despite what I believe are good intentions, the results would be inappropriate and I cannot support this bill.

[Order Of Canada, March 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last night I had the honour of witnessing the appointment of John V. Basmajian to the Order of Canada as well as the promotion of the Right. Hon. Ellen Louks Fairclough within the Order of Canada at Rideau Hall.

Ellen Fairclough is widely respected and admired for her outstanding political, social and cultural contributions to Canada. In addition to representing my riding of Hamilton West in the House of Commons from 1950 to 1962, her appointment to the position of Secretary of State in 1957 made her Canada's first woman cabinet minister.

Professor Emeritus at McMaster University, John V. Basmajian greatly influenced generations of physicians in training. In addition to inventing several widely used medical devices, he is also a pioneer in the area of electromyography, which had a significant impact on the development of biofeedback techniques used for rehabilitation following injury to the central nervous system.

I know all members of this House will join me in honouring two outstanding Canadians: Professor John V. Basmajian, OC and the Right Hon. Ellen Louks Fairclough, PC, OC.

[Marine Transport, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Transport has embarked on a comprehensive study of the Canadian marine sector. The study is being conducted to assist the Minister of Transport with a broad review of the marine sector.

The marine study will include an examination of the port system, pilotage services, the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Canadian Coast Guard. The marine sector plays a vital role in the Canadian economy. Consequently it is incumbent upon us to ensure that Canadian marine policy is conducive to enhanced levels of safety, efficiency, environmental protection and global competitiveness.

Furthermore it should be noted that the Canadian marine sector contributes almost $2 billion a year to Canada's gross domestic product and moves over 225 million tonnes of international trade every year.

As chairperson of the Standing Committee on Transport, I encourage all members to inform individuals and organizations involved in marine operations of the public committee hearings to be conducted on marine issues.

[Interest Act, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, regrettably the hon. member for Chambly significantly weakens his debate for his private member's bill when he makes the far reaching and one might say ridiculous argument that his bill did not win three hours of a debate in this place because Liberals would be embarrassed by his act to amend the Interest Act.

I remind the hon. member opposite that there have been a number of private member's bills introduced by thinking, backbench government Liberal members which run counter to the suggestions of a minister; but still received three hours of debate and a vote. The most recent that I can recall was the private member's Bill C-226, an act to rescind section 745 of the Criminal Code which received three hours of full debate in this place and carried on a vote by the members of this place.

On the matter at hand, I consider it a privilege to speak to Bill C-273, an act to amend the Interest Act. Let me begin by commending the hon. member for Chambly for his well intentioned effort on behalf of Canadian mortgage borrowers.

The bill before us calls for changes to section 10 of the Interest Act. It only calls for the words "12 months" to be substituted for the words "five years" in two places in that section.

At first sight this appears to be a small change but I am concerned that what may seem like a small change could have far reaching consequences. I am worried that what on the surface appears like a consumer friendly improvement may in practice be quite the reverse. If this legislation were to pass mortgage financing for Canadians could become less available and mortgages could be higher and the range of financial instruments available to Canadian borrowers and savers could be reduced.

I want to demonstrate to my parliamentary colleague opposite why such a simple change would have negative consequences. The difficulty is that this bill could inadvertently hamper the flow of funds into the mortgage market by increasing the risks associated with mortgage lending. Hon. members may recall that section 10 of the Interest Act provides for a penalty equivalent to three months interest in the prepayment of the outstanding principal after five years on conventional mortgages with terms greater than five years.

The bill under consideration, this bill, would extend these same provisions; that is, a penalty of three months interest for

prepayment of outstanding principal after only one year on mortgages with terms greater than one year.

As hon. members and many Canadians are aware, long term mortgages are uncommon in Canada. The vast majority of mortgages in this country are issued with terms of five years or less.

One might ask why this lack of long term financing? Unfortunately the prepayment penalty provision in section 10 of the Interest Act is a real factor. This has been recognized by consumer associations, financial institutions, as well as the construction and real estate industries.

Now we have today's proposed legislation which could compound, not improve problems with timely mortgage financing because by adopting Bill C-273 we would risk similar results in the medium term mortgage market. Prepayment penalties for short and medium term mortgages are usually based on the present value formula which compensates the lender for differences in rates which would apply. This amount may be more or less than the three-month penalty proposed by the bill.

We have to recognize the cascading effects such a problem would create. Nervousness about such losses would effect the availability of not only mortgages but also medium term GICs. In turn, the resulting less efficient, smaller mortgage market would have negative implications for the construction and real estate industries.

Let me reiterate. I understand this bill has been put forward with good intentions, that it was tabled with the welfare of consumers in mind. However, in deciding whether Bill C-273 should go forward to committee, hon. members must bear in mind the unintended but adverse consequences which could flow from this bill.

In summary, these consequences include reductions in the choices that will be available to Canadian consumers in their capacities as mortgage borrowers and as savers, increases in the cost of mortgage financing, reductions in the availability of medium term mortgage funds, and adverse spill over effects on the construction and real estate industries.

The hon. member for Chambly does, however, by introducing this bill, underline the need for further consideration of how best to provide Canadian consumers with the opportunity to prepay mortgages in a fair and equitable way.

I understand that officials are reviewing this issue so that we may very well come back to it in a very short period of time.