Debates of April 15th, 1997

Canada Labour Code

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with extreme interest to my colleagues, and certainly to the member of the Bloc who alleges that the Reform Party is an extreme right wing party. That is laughable. These things have to be looked at in degrees. To my colleague from the Bloc, perhaps Karl Marx would be one of those extreme right wing people.

I do not see that there is any conflict here as far as the operation of unions is concerned. What we are talking about are democratic rights. The rank and file members of both the CAW and CUPE wanted an opportunity to vote on their employer's restructuring proposal.

Ultimately, it is in the best interests of Canadian travellers to have an option when they fly. There are beginning to be more competitors on the scene, but for a considerable length of time there have been two major air carriers in Canada, which is a situation that I want to continue. I would like there to be competition between the two airlines. I would not want to have the situation where we would not have a choice and would be compelled to run with one air carrier.

My Bloc colleague talked about too much discretionary power being in the hands of the minister. I agree with him. He is right on.

However my motion does not put extra discretionary power into the hands of the minister. If he had been listening to what I had said during my opening remarks, he would have learned that I object to the way the minister handles or addresses these situations on a piecemeal basis.

We are asking for legislation that would actually put labour and management on an even footing so they would know what the rules are when entering the game. Management could put up a restructuring proposal and if there is nothing to compel the rank and file people from supporting the restructuring proposal they could vote against it.

The way it is now they do not even have the option to reject the offer. The parliamentary secretary says we have to assume that it will be abused by management. We are talking about 700,000 people in industry and services regulated by the federal government. It is not an across the country widespread labour management issue.

We should not assume, as the parliamentary secretary seems to have done, that management will abuse it and every time it wants to roll back wages it will put a restructuring proposal to its membership. Let us for the briefest of moments go along with the parliamentary secretary and say some management people put forward a proposal like that, a proposal that was not a bona fide restructuring proposal. The membership would have the opportunity to vote against it.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

And reject it.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

And reject it. The parliamentary secretary is assuming members would have to vote in favour of the restructuring proposal. That is nonsense.

In summary, although the motion is not votable and therefore not binding, it seems rather fruitless to address the issue. On the other hand I appreciated the opportunity to bring these thoughts to the House of Commons. I thank the members, particularly my colleague for Prince George-Peace River, who joined in the debate on short notice.

I think there is room for improvement in this area. Not only the travelling public but the 16,000 employees with Canadian Airlines will succeed and thrive. I very much hope they do. This would be of benefit not only to the users and the employees of the airline but to the Canadian economy in general.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There being no further members rising for debate and the motion not being designated a votable item, the time provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now 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.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this evening, I would like to come back to the question I asked recently concerning social housing.

At that time, I asked the Minister of Public Works and Government Services about the progress of negotiations now under way between the federal government and the Government of Quebec concerning the role she had in mind for Quebec with respect to social housing.

The presence of the federal government in housing, an area under provincial jurisdiction, means that for 30 years there have been two administrative structures, that of the federal government and that of the Province of Quebec.

This situation naturally leads to unnecessary and very costly overlap. We also note that, of the $2 billion spent annually by the federal government on housing, Quebec receives only 19 per cent, a percentage much lower than the percentage of households in need of social housing in Quebec and also very much lower than Quebec's demographic weight.

This has been a matter of very great importance for Quebec since the federal government announced these negotiations. What is at stake in this transfer is the recovery of the responsibilities now assumed by the federal government over Quebec's territory. Overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities would thus be eliminated and the effectiveness of government intervention in the housing sector would be improved.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you exactly what Quebec is asking for in these negotiations. The one thing Quebec does not want is to be reduced to dispensing services for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Quebec wants to recover full responsibility for social housing, which is now assumed by the federal government.

It also wants to obtain fair and equitable financial compensation that will cover the shortfall in federal spending in the social housing sector in Quebec over the past several years and that will ensure continuity of funding in the long term, in the form of the tax points that go with these transfers.

In return, the Government of Quebec would be given responsibility, through a service agreement with the federal government, for managing the present activities of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, be they mortgage insurance, mortgage backed securities guarantees, social housing research or statistics.

There could then be an agreement between the two levels of government, with the Government of Quebec, through the Société d'habitation du Québec, becoming the single service point and sole

stakeholder for citizens and partners with respect to all housing activities throughout Quebec.

Quebec should therefore be made the sole point of service for social housing. Later on, with the help of people in the sector and through a partnership with the community, RCMs and community organizations, we could certainly provide better service to the people who must take advantage of these measures. The people who must take advantage of them are those in need, the disadvantaged. I therefore submit this point of view for your attention.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond further to the question raised by my colleague regarding the important negotiations between the federal government and the provinces concerning housing.

The federal government has offered to the provinces and territories the opportunity to take over the management of the existing federal social housing resources, with the exception of housing in Indian reserves, provided federal subsidies continue to be used for housing and are targeted to low income households.

These negotiations are aimed at simplifying the administration of social housing by eliminating overlap and duplication and by providing clients one-stop shopping.

We have already signed agreements with some provinces, including Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, and will be signing with other provinces shortly. Negotiations are continuing with the remaining provinces and territories.

Let me assure my colleague that national principles and a rigorous accountability framework will govern the agreements and provinces and territories will have to agree and respect these agreements. The federal government is not withdrawing the financial support it provides to low income Canadians with housing needs. We will continue to meet our financial obligations related to the existing social housing portfolio which is currently about$1.9 billion a year.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before the hon. member for Davenport begins his remarks, I understand that there has been some misunderstanding and the parliamentary secretary is not here. The hon. member has an option. He can either speak today or he may wish to arrange another time. If he prefers we can do the statement and possibly the parliamentary secretary could give a reply on another occasion. I would appreciate the advice of the hon. member.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate your offer. I would be glad to accept your option to proceed with the statement now if it is all right with you.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Very well.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on March 3 I asked the Minister of Natural Resources, in connection with the issue of climate change, what she plans to do to meet both our carbon dioxide reduction commitments under the climate change convention signed in Rio and the carbon dioxide reductions promised in the red book.

It is acknowledged that voluntary efforts to control carbon dioxide emissions are insufficient and that Canada, unfortunately, will not stabilize emissions by the year 2000 or meet the red book commitment to reduce emissions 20 per cent by the year 2005.

We have a long way to go and the climate change problem is getting more and more serious. For example, the Mackenzie valley impact study completed in 1996 measured the impact of climate change on that valley. It predicts lower water levels in northern lakes, increased thawing of the permafrost and the likelihood of increased forest fires.

These changes have not gone unnoticed by Canadians. A recent poll by Inside Canada Research found the vast majority of Canadians surveyed were increasingly concerned about the government's inability to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and to meet its international commitments to stabilize greenhouse gases at 1990 levels by the year 2000.

Therefore, to resolve this problem, a growing international consensus seems to be emerging. It is felt that binding timelines are needed to ensure carbon dioxide emission reductions be achieved in future.

Not only has the voluntary approach to carbon dioxide reductions proven to be insufficient, the Department of Natural Resources now estimates that we will be 9 per cent above stabilization by the year 2000. While emissions continue to grow, we make it more difficult to resolve them with new tax incentives for the production of oil from tar sands, an extraction, as members know, that produces 10 times more carbon dioxide per comparable unit of energy than crude oil from conventional light sources.

What are the answers? They are not easy but they are necessary. First energy efficiency and conservation programs need to be implemented. Well researched programs were released last fall which outline the benefits gained through energy efficient retrofitting of commercial, institutional and residential buildings. Retrofitting is a labour intensive enterprise that pays good dividends by creating more jobs per dollar invested than conventional energy production. Consequently, this makes Canadian industries more competitive.

Second, our large reserves of natural gas allow Canada to shift gradually to natural gas which emits less carbon dioxide than petroleum.

Finally, we have renewable sources of energy which are badly in need of being given a further boost by government. Over time renewable sources of energy and natural gas could become the backbone of the energy industry of the future.

Against this background I ask the parliamentary secretary whether the minister intends to take new measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in Canada. If so, what will they be? On the international scene will Canada move to support the European Union's position, which now calls for a greenhouse gas reduction of 15 per cent by the year 2010?

I appreciate the fact the parliamentary secretary might wish to reply tomorrow.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I understand the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services will give the reply.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for providing this opportunity to further explain the approach and actions the federal government is employing to achieve further CO2 reductions.

First, with regard to approach the government is committed to working with provincial governments and major stakeholders to achieve these reductions.

The government is also committed to employing those policy instruments that can offer the lowest cost and most flexible methods of achieving further reductions. This includes energy efficiency regulations, voluntary initiatives, technological support, public education and tax changes to encourage investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Actions to date under the national action program on climate change have helped to lower projected emissions from 13 per cent to 8 per cent above 1990 levels by the year 2000.

With respect to specific actions the federal government announced 45 new or expanded initiatives in December 1996 to help lower emissions in most sectors in our society.

Among other initiatives there is a strengthened focus on renewable energy and an increased support for green power pilot projects to supply electricity to federal departments.

National climate change outreach initiatives seek to engage educators and different stakeholders to develop ways and means of better informing Canadians about climate change.

In the residential sector the federal government will work to adopt and apply the national energy code for houses to federally owned and leased houses, as well as to produce a home energy efficiency rating system for homebuilders, renovators and buyers.

There will also be an expansion of energy efficiency regulations to include a number of energy using products in the commercial, residential and industrial sectors.

Further, the federal government in co-operation with provincial governments and the private sector will be strengthening the voluntary challenge and registry program, VCR.

Meeting our country's commitment on schedule will not be easy. While we are achieving progress through improvements in energy efficiency and energy substitution, this progress is being offset by our increased population and strong economic growth.

In spite of these challenges I emphasize that Canada has been making progress on reductions. Moreover, the new and expanded initiatives promise further carbon dioxide reductions. We have the initiatives and momentum in place for further progress.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. The House is adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.

(The House adjourned at 7.47 p.m.)