Debates of Feb. 28th, 2007

Motions in amendment

[Robert Bouchard, Bloc, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on the anti-scab bill. This is not the first time that the Bloc Québécois has introduced a bill aimed at protecting the rights of workers. I believe the issue should have been resolved several years ago, long before the debate we are having now.

Following the speech made by the Minister of Labour and member for Jonquière—Alma during second reading of the bill, I would like to make some comments. I want to provide some clarification to the Minister of Labour, because, first and foremost, he comes from the riding where we find the highest number of unionized workers in Canada. When the Minister of Labour says that if we really give employees the right to strike without replacement workers it will put the Canadian and Quebec economy at risk, that shows he believes that workers are irresponsible people who do not think about the consequences of their action. Workers who go on strike do not do so light-heartedly and they understand quite well the consequences of such action.

I would also like to commend the work done by the union coalition in my area, which represents a vast majority of the unions in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and which emphasized to the Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Jonquière—Alma, the importance of adopting anti-scab legislation. The minister maintained his position, however, a position that we heard again here this evening. By making such a decision, the minister is turning his back on hundreds of workers in Quebec, in his riding of Jonquière—Alma and in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, the region and riding he represents.

How can the Minister of Labour oppose putting an end to the inequity that separates workers under the Quebec Labour Code from workers under the Canada Labour Code? What could possibly explain the labour minister's about-face, when—as my hon. colleague was saying earlier—in 1990, as the Progressive Conservative member for Jonquière—Alma, he supported the anti-scab bill? The minister can very well say that, in his new role, he must adopt a Canadian perspective of the situation. By taking this action, he is ignoring the reality in Quebec and failing to represent the workers in his riding of Jonquière—Alma. I would remind the House that, in the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean area, which includes his riding of Jonquière—Alma, some 6,000 workers are governed by the Canada Labour Code.

Prohibiting the hiring of replacement workers during a labour dispute is needed now more than ever. Furthermore, as we have already heard but I would like to reiterate, the studies cited by the minister all come from right-leaning organizations. Any study by the Montreal Economic Institute or the Fraser Institute invariably tends to support the interests of management and to back the employers. Anti-scab legislation has existed in Quebec for the past 30 years. As we have said, and I think it bears repeating, it was under the governance of the Parti Québécois, with René Lévesque as premier, that it was adopted in 1977 and came into force in 1978.

Of course, in Quebec, employers are not promoting the anti-scab measure but it must be said that they can very well live with it.

I want to give a few reasons why we should forbid replacement workers.

First, it would reduce violence on the picket lines. We know that relations are sometimes tense if not violent between strikers and replacement workers. Second, it would force employers to bargain in good faith with the workers to prevent them from extending the conflict, and impose a fair balance in the negotiations between employers and employees. The Canada Labour Code can be interpreted as saying that as long as the employer negotiates that is all that counts. Then, he can hire replacement workers.

There are other reasons. It could prevent households from going into debt when labour disputes last too long. A father must provide for several people. If the family has no income, he must borrow money.

There is also a very wide consensus among unions as to the importance of implementing anti-scab measures.

In today's work world, it is necessary because such measures ensure greater transparency during a conflict.

With this in mind, the current situation under the Canada Labour Code—allowing the use of replacement workers—means that there are very negative consequences during strikes and lockouts. These negative effects are numerous and suffice to illustrate the importance of introducing measures to reduce the length of labour disputes.

The premise is that labour disputes last longer when scabs are used. Even the president of the CSN stated, a few months ago, that everyone agrees that the anti-scab provisions of the Quebec labour code have made labour relations more civilized and contributed to industrial peace.

Such a statement is quite something. We must take note of this opinion. To give just a couple of examples, we believe that the Vidéotron and Cargill disputes would have been resolved much sooner with an anti-scab law under the Canada Labour Code.

Let us return to the Minister of Labour. A while back, not today, he provided some statistics and dramatized the situation that would result with the adoption of the measure in this legislation. I have the figures he gave at second reading of the bill in June: they do not reflect the reality.

In addition, we must consider some other decisive statistics. The average number of work days lost in Quebec is a concrete example. From 1992 to 2002, workers governed by the Quebec Labour Code lost 15.9 days compared to workers governed by the Canada Labour Code, who lost 31.1 days. There is a comparison.

There were twice as many—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

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

The hon. member for Mississauga-South has the floor.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-257, commonly known as the replacement worker bill.

The last time the federal labour code was dealt with, between 1995 and 1999, a comprehensive and exhaustive review took place with all stakeholders. It resulted in some important changes and developments to provide a balance between management and labour and, of course, mutual respect for the collective bargaining process, which is very important to many industries and businesses within Canada.

Members of Parliament have also been approached, lobbied, if you will, by many stakeholder groups on all sides. This bill has resurrected many of the arguments that were raised back in 1995. It is becoming very clear that the instrument of a private member's bill, which receives two hours of debate at second reading, and a very short period for review at committee, and only two hours for report stage and third reading, provides a relatively modest amount of time for a bill that is seeking to make very substantive changes to the federal labour code.

I wanted to raise this point because this is a very serious issue. Members are taking it very seriously. There are legitimate disagreements among members within this place, as was seen by the vote at the second reading stage of the bill.

One of the key elements of the debate has to do with the concept of essential services. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat website in describing what is an essential service refers to the Public Service Labour Relations Act and its definition of an essential service and states as follows:

Subsection 4(1) of the PSLRA defines an "essential service" as "a service, facility or activity of the Government of Canada that is or will be, at any time, necessary for the safety or security of the public or a segment of the public". Services should be identified as essential where there are reasonable grounds for accepting the probability, or even the possibility, that human life or public safety would suffer if a work stoppage interrupted the duties of these employees. It should be noted that positions where occupants are to be available during their off-duty hours to report to work without delay to perform the essential services are also included.

It lists some examples, which include border safety and security, correctional services, food inspection, health care, accident safety, investigations, income and social security, marine safety, national security, law enforcement, and search and rescue.

I think from the standpoint of the Treasury Board and from the Public Service Labour Relations Act the concept of essential services is well defined for the purposes of the Government of Canada.

The federal labour code does not include a definition of what constitutes essential services. In fact, it refers to public health and safety. Amendments that were proposed at committee were trying to incorporate into Bill C-257 the concept of essential services and to have them linked into the federal labour code.

The Speaker, looking at the process and the rules and the procedures that we must follow, was of the view that a couple of the amendments which would establish the concept of essential services within Bill C-257 were beyond the scope of the bill and were out of order. We find ourselves ostensibly with the original bill unamended. A minor amendment was permitted, but the bill is unamended for the most part.

That covers the government side, but there also was the business side, and members also received an intervention from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. Its communication states:

It is the Canadian Chamber's opinion that any change to the Canada Labour Code, especially an amendment that alters the relationship between employers and employees, deserves extensive study in order to fully understand the impacts on Canadian society and the economy. As stated in section 2.4 of Bill C-257, the bill would prevent uninterrupted provision of services that affect seniors, families, small businesses and the Canadian economy--services such as 911; health and emergency services; transportation services (air, rail, marine, and road) and news and weather warnings in the event of a storm or tragedy.

The chamber has launched its campaign to engage members of Parliament on this.

As we can see, the business sector is talking about essential services in the context of the implications to Canadians at large. I know that in our history of postal strikes there has been some argument that the postal service represents an essential service. That is not public health and safety, but--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member will have about four minutes left, but the time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

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

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight looking forward to perhaps finally getting some answers to a question I raised in the House on November 7 in regard to a situation in Hamilton.

No doubt members will recall that Stelco in Hamilton was under CCAA protection over a two year period. Over a period of time, the workers and pensioners and of course their families were under great uncertainty. A number of different proposals went before the courts to try to address the debt situation and other problems at Stelco.

Finally, when it did get to the point of a resolution so that Stelco could emerge from CCAA protection, part of the agreement, Hamiltonians were told, was that the federal government was going to put $30 million into a co-generation plant at Stelco.

Obviously that co-generation plant would go a long way toward cleaning the air in Hamilton. On November 7, I spoke to the fact that the timing, as we see it, has never been better for meaningful projects such as this one.

I look forward to hearing a response from the government, principally because in the spring of this year the Minister of Finance of this government attended the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce and, outside that morning meeting, was questioned by the media and indicated at that time that there was no such agreement on the co-generation plant. Members can imagine how shocked the people of Hamilton East--Stoney Creek and greater Hamilton were to hear that news.

Because of that, the uncertainty came back for our pensioners and they are very concerned. I am looking forward to hearing a response to the question I posed on November 7.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, for the first time in Canada's history, our new government is taking real action to reduce our pollution and greenhouse gases to protect the health of Canadians and the environment.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, our government will achieve real results through mandatory, enforceable regulations with short term, medium term and long term targets. The short term targets will be announced very soon. Mandatory regulations will replaced the voluntary approaches that have failed in the past. We will ensure that regulations are enforced and their objectives achieved.

The previous Liberal government is now under the leadership of the man who the media has nicknamed Dr. Dolittle. He used voluntary measures and ineffective projects funded with taxpayer money, promising to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gases. We all know what happened. He did not get it done. Greenhouse gas emissions actually increased 35% above the promised target. In fact, his deputy leader said that he created an environmental mess.

Unlike the Liberals, Canada's new government believes in the importance of regulations that will require industry to make the necessary investments in their own energy saving technologies.

With regard to the specific case raised by the hon. member, we are willing to examine such initiatives. We also believe that in Canada the polluter should pay. We believe industry should lead in investing in its own technology to save energy, reduce air emissions and decrease production costs.

In the case of air quality and climate change, the government is demonstrating real action and leadership every day. We introduced Canada's clean air act, the most sweeping environmental act to clean up Canada's environment. We announced $1.5 billion for the ecotrust program, working with the provinces to clean the environment, $300 million for ecoenergy efficiency initiative and $230 million for the ecoenergy technology initiative. We announced a renewable fuel initiative, and I could go on and on.

That is why we are introducing enforceable regulations that will require industry to make investments in technology in Canada.

By taking these steps, Canada's new government is focusing on improving the health and environment of Canada. We are ensuring that investments are made to provide clean air and to fight climate change right here at home.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say this is disappointing to us. The people of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek and Hamilton have waited since November to hear about this. Instead we seem to be hearing a commercial bashing the former government, like we are seeing on TV these days.

The mayor of Hamilton came to this community about a month ago to talk about Randle Reef and other significant problems in Hamilton. However, there is no need to examine this project. It was agreed to by Stelco, the company involved. It was agreed to by Hamilton. It was agreed to by the courts. We do not understand why the government is delaying on this.

This is an opportunity to do something for the air in our community and to do it now. Therefore, I am really disappointed with this response.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member well knows what we are doing. We are a government of action. We believe that clear regulations will provide industry with an incentive to invest in the technologies needed to deliver early reductions in air pollution and greenhouse gases.

As important as regulations are, if they are not enforced they are not worth the paper on which they are printed.

Our government will ensure that industry lives up to its obligations. Our approach will also encourage technological change right here in Canada for a cleaner and greener future. The government strongly believes that technology can and will play an important role of reducing pollution. I encourage the member to help us move forward.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the Official Languages Act was passed in 1969, the armed forces have not met their obligation to properly train bilingual officers and to give French its rightful place.

Now the Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages is backtracking on the bilingualism requirements for senior military officers. It is not right that the government, for too long now, has been allowing the armed forces to flout the provisions of the Official Languages Act, and even worse, that the requirements have been lowered for unilingual English officers being appointed to senior positions.

This throws the movement for francophone rights in the Canadian armed forces back 40 years.

In reality, only a francophone officer will be required to be bilingual. The armed forces have never been able to respect the Official Languages Act in their hierarchy. The Conservatives are now choosing to endorse a decline of French in the ranks of the military.

If the armed forces refuse to respect the spirit and the letter of the Official Languages Act, they are being unfair towards the francophones who have no choice but to learn English since senior anglophone officers are apparently incapable of learning even a bare minimum of French.

The Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages and the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities misled this House by implying, on February 8 and 9, that Canada's new policy had been drafted after consultations with the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, among others. However, the Commissioner of Official Languages, Graham Fraser, clearly stated on February 12 that this was not true. Mr. Fraser also criticized the time frame for implementing this new approach, saying that 2012 was too late.

With the new defence rules, the army will be even less bilingual than it is now. Yet even the current situation reflects the Canadian Forces' disrespect for francophones. In 2006, the office of the commissioner showed that the army nearly always violated the Official Languages Act when staffing bilingual positions. Between 39% and 44% of positions designated as bilingual were held by unilingual anglophones. This is unacceptable. It is a deficiency that needs to be pointed out again. The Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages has repeatedly made efforts to get the Canadian Forces to meet their obligations, yet they are shirking their responsibilities again.

With the new policy, not only will French be used less in the army, to the continuing detriment of francophones, but francophones will be ghettoized, according to retired lieutenant colonel Rémi Landry. Positions that, for demographic reasons, are located in Quebec and the national capital region will be French-language positions, and the rest of Canada will be for anglophones only.

Once again, Canada is snubbing French and giving priority to unilingual anglophones for promotion, at the expense of bilingual francophones. Yet we know that the Dominion of Canada was founded 140 years ago on the principle that English Canadians and French Canadians were always to enjoy equal language and cultural rights.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to respond today to the hon. member for Gatineau because yesterday, in the Standing Committee on Official Languages, the hon. member had the opportunity to put questions to the Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages and the Minister of National Defence.

I would like to quote what he said at the end of his comments, “I was being long winded. There is no question in everything I just said, but you can respond to my comments—”. Once again, the Bloc says a lot, but it will never be able to do anything.

Rest assured that the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces recognize the importance of our official languages.

Recently, the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages conducted two investigations. In her findings, the commissioner made 13 recommendations to the Canadian Forces for improving respect for the legislation. The new Canadian Forces official languages transformation model is the response to the 10th recommendation. The official languages transformation model marks the arrival of a brand new approach to managing official languages. The previous approach failed. Our new approach will help resolve past problems and will be more realistic. This new plan will strengthen respect for the Official Languages Act by the Canadian Forces and it will better take into account the unique nature of the organization and the needs of the Canadian Forces, and this is how.

The model describes three specific objectives guiding the overall vision: ensure that linguistically qualified civilian and military personnel are provided in the right place and at the right time to effectively support Canadian Forces operations and to comply with the Official Languages Act; put in place an enhanced official languages awareness and education program that will ensure that civilian and military employees are fully cognizant of their linguistic rights and obligations; establish a performance measurement system that will accurately monitor the ability of Canadian Forces civilian and military personnel to consistently provide bilingual leadership, instruction and services, when and where required by the Act.

The model will focus on senior military officers. Senior officers will continue to have priority access to second language training.

I want to emphasize this because of the erroneous perception articulated by the member for Gatineau that bilingualism is not a condition of service for senior officers. At least 70% of newly promoted colonels and captains must achieve the highest level of linguistic ability during the year following their promotion.

The model requires all senior officers serving in bilingual regions or positions to achieve a superior level of language ability. The scale is the same as for the public service. It is therefore false to suggest that with this model, we are abandoning our obligations.

The Canadian Forces are committed to offering second language training to military personnel who need it to fulfill their duties well. The Canadian Forces will focus their resources on offering an appropriate level of second language training to individuals who require it to improve overall compliance with the act. The act does not require all federal employees to be bilingual.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I come back to what I said earlier. We are in the 140th year of the creation of the Dominion, in fact, of Canada as such. However, even after so many years, we recognize, we see and it is demonstrated once again that federal Canada provides the evidence that it still does not respect the rights of francophones in the armed forces.

Moreover, it allows the armed forces to avoid respecting the Official Languages Act. Indeed, instead of getting them to fill all bilingual positions with people who can adequately speak French and English, it finds a new way for the armed forces to avoid respecting this act.

Thus, by creating 277 units of unilingual English forces, 55 French units and 212 bilingual units, the assimilating Canadian state is dividing the armed forces in a ethnolinguistic way to once again diminish—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that, unlike the political party to which the hon. member for Gatineau belongs, we and the other members on this side of the House voted to support Bill S-3, regarding official languages. As a result, we will not be taking any lessons from the Bloc Québécois. We are going to work to ensure that linguistic duality is just as strong in the Canadian armed forces as it is in other federal institutions.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on a question I asked recently of the Minister of Human Resources and Social Development about the meanspirited cuts of $55 million from a program that provided support for student employment and community groups in Canada.

The response given by the minister at the time was:

--it is kind of hilarious that the member would be concerned about a few million dollars in cuts to summer career placement.

That is a troubling response to a serious question about a summer student job program that has created hundreds of thousands of jobs for students to help pay for university and college. Cutting $55 million, over half the budget, is not an act of a generous country. It is the act of a narrow-minded thinking government and is rooted in its view of the world that sees no role for government to help people.

For the government, if people do not have the means to better themselves it must be their fault seems to be the government's view.

We often hear issues related to crime in the House. We all know that the government would rather build more prison spaces than day care spaces. On the issue of crime it has been an exercise in propaganda.

There is not one MP in the House who does not want to do something about crime. In my own riding of Dartmouth--Cole Harbour crime is an issue. We need to take measures to deal with repeat and violent offenders, including young offenders.

The recent report on the McEvoy incident was very clear. The Youth Criminal Justice Act works very well but there are some things that we can improve and need to do that. We do not want to throw 10 year old kids in jail like some members opposite. We need a balance because most young people, as we all know, have a huge potential to improve themselves and they may need a little bit of assistance.

The root cause of a lot of crime is the opportunity gap. We wants to deal with the root cause which is often poverty.

This brings us to programs like as the summer career placements program. The Liberal government invested in young people, in programs like summer jobs, so that those most in need can get an education. We all know that education and the development of skills opens up opportunities and provides hope for people, especially those who may not have the financial means otherwise.

I think the summer career placements program had two flaws in the eyes of the government. First, it was a Liberal program and, second, it worked.

We have had no answer yet as to what the government will do with these cuts nor do we know what the program will look like. We do know the government cut $55 million out of the budget but there have been no details. Last June when I asked the question I heard that corporations were benefiting. In my own riding, and this is not dissimilar, I have the list of people who benefited from that program. There are no corporations on that list. It is all not for profits: boys and girls clubs, youth soccer programs, youth recreation, mental health groups and women's groups. Those are the groups that use the summer program for students and let students do work in the area of interest to them to benefit the community. In fact, in the last two years all the grants in my riding have been for not for profit organizations.

Is this a permanent cut of $55 million or is this a regifted Conservative hoax, another one like EnerGuide, that it will thrust on the Canadian people?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I am very pleased to tell him that we are acting in the best interests of Canadians, and especially young Canadians.

We want to ensure our investments help those in need. We want to ensure that our tax dollars are spent as wisely as possible as we try to encourage opportunities and our strategy is working.

Because of the government's fiscal policies, the job market is hot. Unemployment is at record lows and never before have so many Canadians been working. Those are statistical facts. Let me give some examples of how we have achieved this enormous success.

The government, for example, spends over $300 million annually on programs to help Canadian youth through the youth employment strategy, part of which helps students get summer jobs. So the misinformation we heard about not for profits getting cut off is simply not true. In fact, we are going to continue to fund not for profit job opportunities for young people.

The government has also announced new investments of $20 million over two years in budget 2006 to fund projects designed to reduce youth crime and gang violence. That accompanies a whole package of tough on crime legislation designed to discourage crime. That is why the Liberal Party, in particular its leader Dr. Dolittle, should stop blocking that anti-crime legislation and help the government pass those bills so that we can make our streets safe.

Budget 2006 announced a textbook tax credit that will benefit about 1.9 million students with a tax credit worth about $80 per student. All they have to do is keep their textbook receipts and they will qualify at the end of the tax year for up to $80. Even if they do not work or pay taxes, they could keep those receipts and when they get out into the workforce, they can use all the years of textbook purchases and benefit from the tax credit later on.

The other good news that the member will celebrate with me is that we have eliminated taxation on scholarship income, so if students work hard and achieve, and win a scholarship for their efforts, they will no longer see that money taken from them by a government with sticky fingers. Instead, that money will stay in their studies. They will be able to use it to buy books and shelter so that they may continue to do their work.

We have also brought in a $1,000 apprenticeship incentive grant announced in last year's budget which that member voted against. Over 100,000 apprentices will benefit. Employers also benefit with up to $2,000 per apprentice for each of the first two years of their contract under the apprenticeship job creation tax credit. So employers who hire apprentices will benefit up to $2,000 per apprentice in federal grants to encourage them to hire and engage apprentices and give them on the job training.

People in my constituency are proud of what we are doing for the trades. It is not just about university students. Many of us here went to university, but let us not forget that many others have picked up the trades. They work in blue collar jobs. They build this country. They should be proud of what they do and we as a government should help them.

We are proud to say that we are leading, that we are getting things done for Canadians, and that we are producing real results for the Canadian economy.

[Michael Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, these kind of non-responses are an abdication of responsibility entirely in keeping with the government's approach of cancelling programs it disagrees with ideologically, hacking apart programs that provide the social infrastructure of our country, and providing no information to community groups or students about what is going on while it decides how to regift a Liberal program that worked from the beginning.

Here is a chance to step up and be a responsible government. Tell Canadians, tell students, tell not for profit organizations, boys and girls clubs, and mental health groups, tell them what is going on.

When the House reconvenes after this week, it will be the week celebrating the coming of spring. After spring comes summer. There is no information. People do not know where to go or where to turn. There is no information about what is going on. When are we going to find out? When is the government going to step up and tell Canadians what is going on with what is left of the summer career placement program after it hacked out half the money?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member should calm down, relax and take some pleasure in the fact that we are keeping a program in place to help not for profit organizations hire our young people for summer placements. The member should celebrate with us that achievement.

In fact, we are making the system more efficient so that more students benefit and more jobs are created. But again, because of our tax cuts and our sound economic management, and our debt repayments, the job market is hot. Jobs are being created. The economy is stronger than ever before and never in this country's history have so many Canadians been working. The country is on the right track. We are getting things done.

We are taking action and will continue to take action in the future.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.

(The House adjourned at 7:35 p.m.)