André Caron

[Income Tax Conventionsimplementation Act, 1995, October 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to express the Bloc Quebecois' assessment of Bill C-105.

As the government spokesperson said before me, this bill is not controversial, it is a matter of course in trade relations between countries.

The bill concerns the implementation of conventions between Canada and various countries, including Latvia, Estonia, Trinidad and Tobago, and Hungary to avoid double taxation and prevent fiscal evasion with respect to taxes on income.

It is a very technical bill that was first negotiated by officials in Canada's diplomatic corps and public service, and we are ratifying the treaties they concluded, with this bill.

As the government spokesperson put it so well, this sort of thing is standard between sovereign countries, countries that want to promote trade. The bill is based on the standards defined by the OECD, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

You might be wondering why I wanted to speak on behalf of the official opposition. Because this bill, which has been described as arising as a matter of course, could serve as an example, a point of comparison, for the events that could occur the day after a yes vote in the referendum in trade and economic relations between Canada, the United States, Quebec and other countries in the world.

In their trade, diplomatic and political relations, countries look after their own interests, as the opposition member clearly pointed out. In a proposal like the one before us, before concluding a treaty or an agreement-and there are now such treaties and agreements with 55 countries in the world-, we look after Canada's interests. We look at these countries' investments in the Canadian economy and at Canada's investments in the countries with which we have treaties.

At some point, after assessing our trade and economic interests, we sign a treaty. So there is nothing contentious in all of this. Negotiations take place, the various countries check their laws, and it is quite normal to sign an agreement so that Canada and its partners can maintain and improve their regular trade and economic relations.

In the debate currently taking place in Quebec and Canada on the prospect of a sovereign Quebec, economic and trade arguments are often on the agenda. Just the day before yesterday, the Minister of Finance claimed that Quebec's sovereignty would threaten 1 million jobs in that province. When we examine the finance minister's speech, we see that these million jobs would be

threatened if trade between Canada and Quebec and between the U.S. and Quebec was reduced to zero.

Can trade between Canada, Quebec and the U.S. be reduced to zero? Will Quebecers and people in Jonquière stop buying Ford cars if these cars meet their requirements? Will people in the U.S. stop-

[Canada Labour Code, October 17th, 1995]

She was elected and a department was found for her. It could have been the department of the Canadian near north, it could have been the department of Canadian rain, or the department of the Rocky Mountains. It was simply a matter of finding her a department so she would have some credibility when she toured Quebec defending the option she is currently defending.

I am not saying this to criticize her work, but simply to point out that she did not do what she had to do as Minister of Labour. We do not feel there is a Minister of Labour in Canada in this case.

The second reason the Government of Canada is putting off passing legislation like this is one of ideology. You know that there was a law like this in Ontario. If I am not mistaken, it was passed by the NDP government. The new Harris government-I might say the harass government, but it is the Harris government-has announced that this law will be repealed.

I have not heard that the legislation in question had caused any more trouble in Ontario than in Quebec. It is being challenged for only one reason, an ideological one, which is to allow employers the freedom to do what they want with their property.

I thought that way of thinking was out of fashion in Canada today. I thought that the Canadian state had taken certain steps to oversee the action of employers in order to ensure a certain balance between the law of the market place, the law of might makes right, the law of the jungle, whatever you want to call it, and basic public interest. I believe that the attitude adopted by the Government of Ontario in this instance is a purely ideological one.

Nothing in Ontario labour relations in recent years has proven that the legislation was not working. In Quebec, on the contrary, it can be said that since 1978, which makes 17 years now, there has been unanimous agreement that the act is working well.

Even the conseil de patronat du Québec gave up its Supreme Court challenge by the late 1980s.

I hope that this House will examine the bill of our colleague from Manicouagan with care, and will once and for all settle this pressing problem of justice in labour relations for all Canadian workers, and no doubt for a few months more for Quebec workers as well.

[Canada Labour Code, October 17th, 1995]

As my colleague says, scabs, to use a colloquialism.

I think it only makes sense that in 1995, the Canada Labour Code should contain a provision of this kind that would harmonize labour relations in situations where a strike may turn violent and ensure that employees who have temporarily lost their jobs are not replaced, since otherwise violence tends to develop on the picket lines and we get situations that are truly appalling.

I actually thought the Canada Labour Code contained a provision to that effect, because the Government of Quebec passed similar legislation in 1978, if I am not mistaken. At the time, representatives for the employers protested that it was not appropriate to intervene in labour relations in a conflict situation of this kind, the excuse being that employers should be free to take any action necessary to continue their operations.

I think that at the time Quebec society made a wise decision when it told employers: Gentlemen, in our society, the government has a responsibility to provide leadership, to identify potentially violent situations and remove the cause of violence on the picket lines. In Quebec, if I remember correctly, we had two major disputes in which strike breakers were hired by companies and there was violence on the picket lines.

I remember the infamous strike in the sixties at United Aircraft in Longueuil and seeing on the news that armoured buses were bringing in people who were supposed to replace the workers who were legally walking the picket lines. This was a violent situation, and I think it is not in the interest of society to allow such situations to continue.

There was another case referred to at the time as the strike at Lapalme. This was a company connected with the Post Office Department. Its employees were on strike and, again, had been replaced with strike breakers or scabs. This dispute poisoned labour relations in Quebec for months and months. There were demonstrations supporting the workers, and petitions were signed. When the PQ government came to power in 1976, there had been considerable debate on the issue, so that legislation was adopted to regulate the whole issue of hiring strike breakers.

In fact, since that time, Quebec has had no violent conflicts comparable to those we saw in the sixties and seventies. Employers finally understood, although for a long time they were against this legislation. They were supposed to go to the Supreme Court but, if I remember correctly, the case was withdrawn in the eighties when the employers realized that the situation had improved since the passage of this bill.

I am very surprised that the Canada Labour Code did not take its cue from the Government of Quebec, especially since this concerns a large number of employees in Quebec. There are more than 200,000 employees in crown corporations, corporations regulated by the Canada Labour Code. In Canada, there are more than one million. I think that the House of Commons should act responsibly

and realize there is a major problem which should be dealt with as soon as possible.

Why is this still a problem? I think there are two reasons. The first, obviously, is negligence. The official opposition has put a number of questions to the Minister of Labour since her arrival in the House. We asked her if the Canadian government was going to introduce legislation. Her replies have always been evasive. The questions put to her by the official opposition concerned a labour dispute which still today, in 1995, poisons labour relations at a flour mill in Montreal. The employees came and demonstrated outside Parliament; they came to hear us in the House galleries. The dispute lasted a very long time.

What is odd is that this dispute involved the same company and the same people who were on the management side in a dispute that, a few years or months before the Parti Quebecois enacted the legislation in Quebec, forced the government to take immediate action because one man had been killed. Somebody was shot at on the picket lines, and a worker was dead. The government assumed its responsibilities at that point.

Today we realize that the Government of Canada, with a minister whose arrival was a bit strange and whose role was rather vague-

[Canada Labour Code, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-317 standing in the name of my colleague and friend from Manicouagan. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Staff Relations Act so as to deal with the issue of scabs and essential services in the case of labour disputes.

I am somewhat surprised to be in this position in 1995, because it seems to me this kind of legislation should have been passed long ago at the federal level.

The history of labour relations has more often than not been one of struggle and sometimes, unfortunately, one of violence. When we study the history of the labour movement, we realize that when violence occurred, either on picket lines or as a result of a strike, it was in situations where the employer had hired strike breakers. In other words, he had replaced his employees who were legally on strike with people who were supposed to do the same work.

[Poverty, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the international day for the elimination of poverty provides an opportunity for all Quebecers to take a moment to reflect on the dramatic living conditions of some of our fellow citizens.

Nearly a million and a half Quebecers live below the poverty line. We live in a province that suffers from the highest rate of poverty in Canada, by far. Despite all the efforts of the Government of Quebec, one child in five in Quebec comes from a poor family. Quebec seniors continue to be much poorer than seniors anywhere else in Canada. We are struggling with a huge problem that is tearing us apart.

Quebec must become sovereign so its government will have the means to combat poverty effectively. This is why Quebecers will vote yes.

[Unemployment Insurance, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the request the minister has received from the Minister of Finance, will he admit that the federal government's sole objective is to curb its deficit at the expense of UI and welfare recipients through UI reform and cutbacks on transfers to the provinces?

[Unemployment Insurance, September 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

The confidential document issued by the minister's office on the UI reform the federal government is trying to hide from Quebecers contains proposals to further restrict access to unemployment insurance and bring down the maximum number of benefit weeks from 50 to 45.

Given that the 1994 UI reform has already driven nearly 5,000 Quebec families to seek social assistance, will the minister recognize that any further cut is simply forcing more and more unemployed onto welfare? Is that what the minister has in store for Quebec voters if they vote No?

[Canada Post Corporation, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion moved by my colleague that the Canada Post Corporation include in its strategic development plans a local development perspective.

We have so often seen the negative impact that closing post offices has had on small communities in Quebec and Canada. The present government is very much aware of this and a few months ago, asked the Canada Post Corporation to set a moratorium on closing post offices in rural areas.

Considering the role played by the Canada Post Corporation in these small communities, I think it was a wise move on the part of the government and, furthermore, I think the Canada Post Corporation's review committee, to be appointed by the corporation, would do well and, in fact, should ensure that the corporation's development plans include a special focus on the development of local communities and that postal services continue to play the role they had played so far in these communities.

After expressing my support for this motion, I think I should comment on what was said by my two colleagues, the Liberal member and the member for the Reform Party. I think it is a good indication of the present situation in Canada and the problems we have.

First the hon. member for the Liberal Party said everything is fine at the Canada Post Corporation. The corporation is streamlining its operations, making a profit and introducing a number of programs, including literacy programs which, as far as I can see, would be used by the Canada Post Corporation to develop local communities. It is not quite enough in my view.

We then heard the hon. member for the Reform Party launch his party's customary attack on crown corporations, government services in general. According to him, the Canada Post Corporation's sole responsibility is to deliver the mail. Whether this is done by the Canada Post Corporation, a private corporation, an American corporation or whoever, the only responsibility of Canada Post is to deliver the mail.

This attitude has become increasingly widespread in this country, and I think it has a destabilizing influence on Canada as a country and on Quebec as the country I hope it will become. We can draw a parallel with what happened to the railways.

The railroads, which were among the major institutions of this country, have been abandoned. They did not believe in railroads, they invested in transportation companies, which were allowed to use heavier trucks that were then subjected to fewer inspections, hence the increase in the number of accidents and in the level of danger on our highways. In some areas of Canada, highways have been almost completely destroyed because they are now used to carry loads which ought to be moved by rail.

Meanwhile, the rail system is being dismantled. There is also the whole issue of telecommunications. We see in Quebec, and I believe it is also the case in Ontario, very serious problems caused by the fact that Bell Canada is presently restructuring its services on the basis of new technologies and a new personnel management policy.

This company is cutting jobs in order to withstand competition. This situation was caused by the fact that two or three years ago the CRTC allowed American companies, and I underline it did so despite opposition from Quebec, to compete with Bell Canada here in Canada. As a result, one of the most profitable companies in Canada, one with annual profits in the order of $900 million, or nearly $1 billion, was forced to compete by adopting its competitors' methods, including new technologies, lower prices and layoffs. In Quebec, this represents 4,000 out of 10,000 jobs.

This company, which made an important contribution to the political and economic life of Canada and Quebec, is currently being restructured. In addition to CN, Canada Post and telecommunications, our friends in the Reform Party are talking about privatizing hospitals. There is also talk about privatizing prisons in New Brunswick. If we go on like this, we will eventually find ourselves with a territorial entity called Canada, where there will be no government services, where the law of the jungle will prevail, where a bunch of small companies will compete without taking national imperatives into account in their business strategies.

A country, be it Canada or Quebec, cannot simply set its sights on globalization and set competition and the lowest costs as its goals. History shows that a country is created out of a sense of solidarity, a sense of nationhood. What is being shown here in this House, especially by our Reform colleagues, is that we are altering this concept of nationhood, of government services that has evolved over the centuries.

I think that by focussing on short term profits we are dismantling democratic countries, bona fide countries which made sure they could provide services to people and settle their land. I think that many of our fellow citizens, in Quebec and my region in particular, are becoming aware of this ill effect of new political ideas that came out of the blue in the early 70s. I think that in striving to restructure certain processes and change the way we do things as nations we are in fact destroying our countries.

I think that we will have to pay close attention to all this dismantling in our regions. Last week-end, more than 700 people gathered in my region. These municipal council members and representatives from various organizations were attending a general assembly to let people know that we want to continue to exist as a region. It is not true that our region will be shut down just because some banker, business leader or finance minister got the notion that we are no longer profitable.

We have settled this area. We have built communities and we want these communities to continue to exist. At a time when new ways of doing things are promoted, we can do as fine a job in Jonquière as in Montreal running a company or establishing a telephone service with real people to man the phones. I believe things can be done just as well in Montreal, Toronto, Jonquière, Chicoutimi or Roberval.

Citizens are realizing that, under the guise of putting into practice economic theories the fruits of which have never been reaped by the population, the structure of the country is being pulled apart to the extent that we no longer form communities, we no longer are citizens of a country; we have become mere consumers and investors.

I believe we must rise slightly above this vision of life and we, in this House, must look at things from a loftier plane and be able to tell our fellow citizens that we are heading in a direction that will ultimately transform us into vibrant countries, be it Canada or Quebec, which will be increasingly prosperous and fair with their citizens.

[Federal Public Servants, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this government is trying to intimidate federal public servants in Quebec who want to actively participate in the referendum campaign. In a letter to all his employees, the deputy minister for Treasury Board warns federal public servants in Quebec to think twice about the nature of their employment before making public statements.

Federal union officials are unanimous in denouncing this barely veiled threat because, notwithstanding the Liberal government's will to gag federal public servants, the Supreme Court recognized that they have the right to freely express their views during election or referendum campaigns.

Since when does the government threaten its employees with losing their job if they exercise their right to speak freely? As we saw earlier this week, the government is once again about to sacrifice the rights and freedoms of Quebecers for the sake of Canadian unity.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada Act, June 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak at the report stage of Bill C-91.

When the bill was tabled on first reading, I had the impression it would simply change the name of the bank and increase the amount of capital available. In other words, it would make a certain number of adjustments, considering the fact that the legislation establishing the bank was at least 20 years old. At first glance it seemed quite logical and understandable that the minister responsible for the bank should want to update the legislation.

However, after considering the bill and reflecting on the scope of certain clauses, I feel I must condemn this legislation and, as my Bloc Quebecois colleagues have done, point out to the House that a number of clauses are potentially dangerous.

In fact, the bill would change the mission of the Federal Business Development Bank and allow the bank to be used for purposes which may be questionable and even unacceptable to the provinces and to certain regions in the provinces.

First, a few words about the bank's mission. As you know, the Federal Business Development Bank continues the tradition of institutions that were established after the war to help small

businesses raise the capital they needed. In the case of defence conversion, they were to help Canada build a thriving civilian industry that would contribute to the country's prosperity.

The institution was well received by Canadians and Quebecers. It has excellent credentials and has proved its worth.

The bank's mission was, more or less, to provide last resort financing, in other words, to help developers who found it difficult to get financing from traditional financial institutions. The Federal Business Development Bank was set up to ensure that the necessary capital would be available to entrepreneurs so they could start small businesses.

It is clear that this bill will change the mission of the bank. It is now described as providing complementary financing not customarily provided by traditional financial institutions. Complementary financing is not the same as last resort financing. Last resort financing is needed when the institution or the developer goes to the institutions and although the banks agree the project is worthwhile, they cannot provide the capital, while complementary financing does not have quite the same connotation.

It is clear that if the bank is described as providing complementary financing, it is directly competing with institutions across Canada that were set up to help entrepreneurs find capital. An example is the venture capital fund which has become an institution in Quebec. It seems that in Canada, Quebec is known for its institutions that specialize in providing venture capital for entrepreneurs.

I am thinking as well of the solidarity fund of the FTQ, the industrial development corporation and the Innovatech companies. In short, the Federal Business Development Bank, by abandoning its purpose of providing last resort capital, will now be competing with institutions that make attractive capital available to promoters.

This change in the bank's purpose is regrettable. In my opinion, the aim of the bank was to provide last resort funds. It was good at that. By changing its purpose and allowing it to subtly change its objectives and the type of capital it will provide, we may be putting Canadian business seriously at risk.

Perhaps we of the Bloc could have viewed somewhat positively the purpose of providing complementary funding, but I think the bill should have provided that the purpose of the bank was to continue to provide last resort funds.

Two clauses are also cause for concern. Perhaps there are others, but I think my colleagues will look after pointing them out to the House. Clauses 20 and 21 raise problems, in my opinion. Clause 20 provides that "the Bank may enter into agreements with -any department or agency of the government of Canada or a province or any other body-". The reference here is perhaps to cities, educational institutions, regional development councils-any other body in order to carry out its purpose.

If clause 20 were adopted as it stands, the bank could intervene directly with bodies that come under provincial jurisdiction.

I think this is potentially dangerous, given Canada's economic history and even its political history. One realizes that over the years one of the major problems with Canadian federalism has been that, given its spending power, the federal government has been able to interfere in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. The most obvious and striking example is education, an area which, under the constitution, clearly comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces but an area where, over the years, the federal government, with its spending power, has been able, first directly with the universities, and also directly with some school boards for certain programs, to step in and often, to a certain extent, divert these bodies from their goal because they had to meet the federal government's funding requirements.

I am myself an educator by profession. Over the years, I have often seen federal programs proposed. It was a little difficult for the local administrators to refuse. They were afraid that if they did, they were going to be turning down large amounts of money, maybe $10,000 or $100,000. Administrators therefore did what the province of Quebec did in the fifties with respect to university funding.

Local or provincial governments must, in such a situation and as a last resort, accept the interference of the federal government because large sums of money are at stake.

In clause 20, the federal government provides itself with the necessary means to interfere, again, in areas that come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. It is probably also ensuring that there is yet more duplication so that federal, provincial and municipal agencies compete, which is very harmful. The history of the Canadian federation since day one shows that this was a serious flaw in the Canadian federal system, where different levels of government can compete in major areas.

I would have liked to say a few words more on clause 21, which mandates the bank to support entrepreneurship. This is an extremely vague term that could be made to mean just about anything. Again, this could be another excuse for the FBDB to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Perhaps we would see less cause for concern or suspicion if the whole regional development policy had not changed so drastically these past few months. But since it did change, we suspect that the Federal Business Development Bank could be the federal government's way of making up for what it is no longer investing in the area of development and ensuring that there is more and more duplication in areas of provincial jurisdiction.