Réal Ménard

[Zaire, November 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the aid professionals sounded the alarm, saying they needed action, not words. People are dying like flies in Zaire.

Does the minister realize that, if the international community continues to wait and see, there will be a real slaughter, and that, in the circumstances, considering the humanitarian emergency, the only solution may be to consider military intervention on short notice?

[Zaire, November 8th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Today, Rwanda opposed France's participation in plans for intervention by the international community. Meanwhile, more than 13,000 people have died since the beginning of the conflict, and hundreds of thousands of refugees are in danger of dying in eastern Zaire. Deprived of help for more than two weeks, they are cut off from the outside world by the rebels, who prevent humanitarian organizations from reaching their region.

Since Kigali is opposed to France's participation but would look positively on an Euro-African military mission, could the minister tell us whether a proposal of this kind is being considered?

[The Canada Labour Code, November 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on a biographical note, I would like to remind the minister that, in 1993, he voted for an amendment regarding preventative withdrawal tabled by the Bloc Quebecois, and I ask him this: Will he undertake to make the necessary changes to the Canada Labour Code so that agreements can be entered into with the provincial governments, that would include compensation plans for the reassignment or preventative withdrawal of pregnant or breastfeeding workers, where such plans exist?

[The Canada Labour Code, November 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.

On the one hand, under Quebec law, pregnant workers may use the provisions respecting preventative withdrawal from work, with compensation, if their work presents a risk to themselves or to the foetus. Similar provisions exist in several other Canadian provinces. On the other hand, those subject to the Canada Labour Code do not enjoy the right to preventative withdrawal.

Will the minister admit that the fact that the Canada Labour Code provides for neither reassignment nor preventative withdrawal with compensation penalizes pregnant or breastfeeding workers in Quebec and Canada?

[Canada Labour Code, October 30th, 1996]

I seem to have the support of one of my Reform colleagues, which is certainly quite welcome, although as surprising as it is unexpected, but it certainly is inspiring to realize that when we discuss these things we can understand each other and convince our colleagues that certain things have to be done.

I believe my time is running out. I would like to add that the National Council of Welfare, a very serious and non-partisan agency which has been around for quite some time, since it was founded by a constituent act in 1966, the National Council of Welfare reminded us that Canadian society has never been as poor, that wealth has never been as unequally distributed, adding that if we had wanted to, we could have wiped out poverty.

I would like to quote what the National Council said in its 1995 report. It recalled the following facts: "Despite the sombre reality, it is not utopian to think that we can win the war against poverty. Statistics Canada estimates that it would have cost $15.2 billion in 1994".

I repeat: It is not utopian to think we can win the war against poverty. Statistics Canada estimates that it would have cost $15.2 billion in 1994 to bring all the poor above the poverty line. This is an enormous amount but certainly not too much, in a country where the federal government and the provincial territorial governments spent about $350 billion in 1994 and where the value of all goods and services produced exceeded $750 billion". We are living in a society where governments spend $350 billion and where we produce $750 billion.

If we had had the common sense to pool our resources and put $15 billion into active measures to fight poverty, today in this House we would not only be discussing the minimum wage, we would also be able to say how proud we are that as legislators, co-operating with all partners, we were able to wipe out poverty. For this scenario to become a reality, however, it is not enough to have a debate. It is not enough to have a government. It is not enough to have a democracy. We need an ingredient that is extremely important and also extremely rare in a democracy, one that is certainly lacking in the government before us. I am of course referring to political courage. Because to raise this $15 billion, we must also do something about the distribution of wealth. And if we want to do something about that, the government would have to have the guts to put a minimum tax on the table, something the opposition has been asking for three years.

However, a minimum tax means taxing a certain number of corporate citizens, who are of course friends of the present government.

Since my time is up, I will say in concluding that we will never do enough to fight poverty.

[Canada Labour Code, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for this opportunity to speak for up to a maximum of 40 minutes, and I will try to stay within those limits. You know how unpredictable this is, but before discussing the minimum wage, I shall, if I may, be out of order and offer my congratulations to a friend who works with us at the leader's office and has now become a father-talk about a positive element. David MacDonald, who is well known here on the Hill, is now the proud father of a baby girl.

That being said, my congratulations duly extended, we are now talking about a very serious matter. Our listeners know that when, as parliamentarians, we discuss the issue of minimum wage rates, we refer to three major factors. These are people who are less well off in society. There are people who often have no collective agreement, who lack this often elementary protection that puts it all down in writing. In that case they have to rely on legislation like the bill before the House today to amend the Canada Labour Code.

These are people who work part-time and who in many cases have difficult working conditions and hold down several jobs. For their sake it is certainly very important to try to impose a certain number of rules which according to the legislator set the absolute strict minimum.

As we have said on several occasions, we believe that Bill C-35 is a rather positive bill. It is positive, since it has six major characteristics. The first one is that to all intents and purposes, and I say this very carefully, the bill before the House today says that in every province where there are federally-regulated companies, the minimum wage rate will be aligned with the rate in effect in that particular province. The federal minimum wage was $4 and has not been increased since 1986.

Of course the federal government, and that is one of its prerogatives, retains the right to establish an hourly rate for companies under its jurisdiction, should there be no minimum wage rate in effect in the province, but to all intents and purposes, the bill will put an end to this aberration which we have condemned many times in the past, which meant that two groups of workers within the same territory and doing the same job could not be getting the same hourly rate, which made no sense at all.

Let me give you the broad parameters of Bill C-35. As I said before, and to make quite clear to listeners who have just tuned in, I repeat that the federal minimum wage is set at the hourly rate established by the employee's province or territory of employment.

Having said that, I think that, for the sake of clarity, we must bear in mind that the reality in terms of the Canadian labour market and the current minimum wage is a rather fragmented, uneven reality, since we are not in a situation where minimum wage rates are harmonized. Think that there are provinces where the minimum wage rate is barely above $4, while it is as high as $7 in generous British Columbia. But for this reality to be reasonably meaningful to our fellow citizens, I will nevertheless list the various hourly rates in effect in each province.

Alberta has set its minimum wage rate at $5; British Columbia, whose financial situation is the healthiest, has an hourly rate of $7; Prince Edward Island, $5.40, as the minister, who was himself born and raised on this island no larger than Montreal, pointed out; Manitoba also has an hourly rate of $5.40; New Brunswick, $5.50; Nova Scotia, $5.50; Ontario, the very conservative province of Ontario, where a lot is happening these days, as you know from following the news, has an hourly rate of $6.85; Quebec, $6.70; Saskatchewan, $5.35; Newfoundland, $5.25; the Northwest Territories, $7; and the Yukon, $6.86.

So, it was wise on the part of the government, as the federal legislator, to decide to bring its rate in line with the provincial rates, and that is an initiative we have applauded on several occasions.

It should be pointed out that the bill calls for the general rate to apply, regardless of the profession, status, or work experience of the worker, which has not always been the case. In the past, exceptions were made possible because of characterizations like the ones I just mentioned.

Also, and it was wise to provide for this, when workers are paid under a different criterion-there are places for instance where earnings are calculated by the piece, that is another possibility-they must receive at least as much as the minimum wage equivalent for the work in question.

Fourth exception, where the wage rate set by the province is based on age, the highest rate applies, and we think this is normal and desirable.

Fifth, as I said, the federal government may set the minimum wage rate with respect to employment in a province.

Sixth, the federal government specifies the conditions under which and the occupations in which young people under the age of 17 may be employed, but there may be no specific rate for them.

As you can see, one of the changes introduced with this Bill C-35 is that exceptions on the basis of age will no longer be allowed, contrary to what had been the practice until just recently, for fear that it would not meet the test of the Charter in eventual court challenges, as the chairman of the human resources development committee can imagine, he who, as we know, is very concerned about these issues.

As much as we applaud this legislation and feel it should be supported, it still has some flaws. We still did our job as opposition, because the opposition must work on improving the government. Of course, it is a full time job. With all we have ahead of us, no one could work only part time on improving the government. If we want a better government, the opposition must work very hard and full time, and be able to introduce amendments.

We proposed an amendment which the Liberals rejected with some weak arguments. We do not fully understand what drove them to it; Their justifications were somewhat vague. But we did put forward an amendment aimed at-it is still possible. Even if only 10 per cent of workers are subject to the Canada Labour Code, this does not mean we should not be concerned with them. Ten per cent of workers are subject to the Canada Labour Code.

Fifty per cent of this 10 per cent of workers are paid the minimum wage. This is another reality we must deal with. Since this is a federal jurisdiction, there are cases in which a worker may perform his duties in more than one province. There is the whole issue of trucking, of interprovincial transport.

We have concerns. We wondered what would happen when a worker does not have a fixed workplace and the employer himself can assign a workplace in Ontario, Saskatchewan or Alberta. Would the employer not be inclined to choose the workplace with the lowest hourly wage rate?

Because we are concerned with this social democratic aspect, we questioned the minister in subcommittee. I think the committee chairman will recall that some of our questions remained unanswered. That is why we felt it was our duty to move an amendment. So we put forward an amendment that was defeated by the Liberals.

In short, we still did our duty and I am convinced that we uncovered a flaw in this bill which was minor but nonetheless worth bringing to the government's attention.

But, to me, the most important issue in this fundamental debate is not so much the fact that the minister proposes a bill on minimum wage. It would have been interesting to put the issue of minimum wage in the context of impoverishment. This is the reality and we will keep repeating it as long as we sit in this House, because there are few people, with the notable exception of the official opposition, who are truly concerned about the plight of the poor. It must be understood that there have never been so many poor in Canada.

No one in this House, whether from the government, the Reform Party or the Bloc Quebecois, can rise and say that, since the seventies, the Canadian and Quebec societies have become more affluent overall. It is not the case. Rather, there is an increasing number of poor, 4.8 million of them, in Canada.

I thank the Speaker for showing concern about my health. It is true that I was not feeling well the last few days. I had the flu. Had it not been for my robust health, I would not have recovered. But I am here to talk to you and to protect the interests of the poor.

Poverty is not disappearing. It is not diminishing. I am pleased to see the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development, because I want to remind him that, while poverty is measurable, while it is a statistical data, it is also a human reality. Behind every graph, chart, figure and fraction, there are destinies, hopes, dramas and families.

We are told there are 4.8 million poor in Canada, and it is agreed that a Canadian is considered to be poor when 56 per cent of his or her income is spent on the three basics, namely clothing, housing and food. As you know, poverty, like unemployment, is not a genetic trait.

The labour, international trade and human resources ministers keep telling us about market globalization and interdependency, but the fact is that we have an unemployment rate which is chronically much higher than the average for OECD countries.

And while the average rate of unemployment in OECD countries stands at 7.8 per cent, the Canadian average is 12 per cent, and in certain parts of large cities, 13, 14, 15, 16 and even 22 per cent.

One day we would like an explanation as to why certain countries that are not on Mars but right here on Earth have achieved full employment, when it is still eluding us here in Canada.

For the official opposition, one thing is certain and that is that there is no getting around the fact that two governments get in each other's way, and that when you are without a job, when things have taken a turn for the worse and you have lost your job because of a disability, or have just been laid off, there is no one place you can go for help. There are a certain number of programs you may turn to if you receive income security benefits, but not if you are on unemployment insurance.

The only truly integrated labour market policy is one in which all related activities would be handled by a single authority, which can only be the provinces.

I would like to come back to the issue of poverty. It is not a question of genes. The parliamentary secretary, who generally has little to say when we mention figures, but manages to find his tongue in committee, will agree with me that poverty is not something you are born to. It is not as though some people are destined to be poor, while others are destined to be rich. However, it must be admitted that certain decisions drive people into poverty. I would like to give you a recent example. This is not an example from 50 years ago, but is something quite contemporary and immediate, and has resulted in a cloud of shame descending on this Parliament, particularly to your right, when the employment insurance legislation was passed.

The employment insurance reform is bad for two reasons. First, because it limits the accessibility of workers and of employees to the protection of unemployment insurance that they have paid for. It will be remembered, first of all, that the Canadian government has not, since 1992, contributed one red cent to the unemployment insurance fund, and it would be impossible to find comparisons within the OECD, to find any example of a country which has decided to disengage in such an irresponsible way from the unemployment insurance field.

The fact is, that with unemployment insurance reform, benefits, coverage and duration are being reduced. What does this mean? It makes it clear that there is a link between the constitutional framework and Quebec's sovereignist project. What did Louise Harel, the Quebec minister of employment and MLA for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve have to say in the last referendum? "We are investing $10 billion yearly for the Quebec labour market". This is not a trifle, $10 billion yearly. It is even far higher than the average amount invested in the OECD countries. Despite the fact that we are investing more in work force policies within Quebec, including

income security and unemployment insurance, we are faced with an unemployment rate that is higher than the OECD average.

What does this mean? It means that the continued unemployment is not a result of lack of money, or of resources. If there is this much unemployment, it is because programs have been poorly designed, because there is no possibility for a single decision-making centre to have an integrated labour market policy.

Think how wonderful it would be if, once a person was out of the work force, for all manner of reasons, more often than not reasons beyond his control, there were only one single centre of authority for that person, where he could be offered a broad range of programs and measures, where a true path back to work would be available to him. In other words, a given individual would be followed from the very beginning of his loss of employment, throughout the system, and right up until he obtained a new job, without any concern for federal-provincial overlaps, for this is where the damage is done.

We have two decision-making centres which are not co-ordinated, which do not speak the same language, which do not take the same steps, which discourage people, and which make it impossible for Quebec to have a proper integrated labour force strategy.

Still more serious is the fact that the policy proposed by the Minister of Human Resource Development is a one which contributes to destabilizing Quebec's public finances. I believe we must speak of this reality. Those listening to us have a need to know. With the restrictions that have been made within unemployment insurance reform, making it into employment insurance, 30,000 new households have been unable to qualify for employment insurance and have therefore had to apply for income security, which is a last resort.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote an eminent economist known to a number of us. His name is Pierre Fortin. He is an economist with the UQAM. He is not a member of the Bloc Quebecois. He is not a member of the executive of my riding association. He has no sovereignist leanings. He is a brilliant intellectual and a respected member of the academic community.

He was involved in drafting a report published under the title: "Pour un régime équitable axé sur l'emploi". This report, released not quite a year ago, was very critical of the employment insurance system. I would like to quote from the report.

It says: "In 1995, approximately 120,000 people were either unemployed and recently excluded from unemployment insurance or had dropped out of the labour market altogether as a result of these restrictions. Since it is usually estimated that 25 per cent of those who are not eligible for unemployment insurance end up on welfare, it is reasonable to believe that federal restrictions-and I will repeat this in an attempt to get the attention of the former parliamentary secretary, I feel sorry for him, but it is not our decision-it is reasonable to believe that federal restrictions have caused as many as 30,000 more households to go on welfare. The annual cost to the Quebec government would increase by about $240 million. The first estimates available indicate that the new changes in unemployment insurance announced for 1996 would add another 20,000 households to those already on welfare and would finally put the cumulative cost of these restrictions at approximately $400 million for Quebec".

Do you realize the tragedy behind all this? When you see the Minister of Finance with his grey hair and his unconscionable ego rising at the Liberal convention strutting like a peacock when he says that he made it, that he is about to achieve his budgetary objectives, there is something extremely troubling here which is almost dishonest, because the Minister of Finance did not tell us that, as he is about to achieve his budgetary objectives which were to bring the deficit down to 2 per cent of GNP, he did so with absolute contempt for the provinces, by offloading his problems and making the provinces poorer.

That is the reality, and when Pierre Fortin tells us that the reforms proposed by the Liberal government will add an additional $400 million to the cost of welfare payments, this is the most despicable, pernicious, unacceptable and irresponsible example of what Canadian federalism has to offer. That is why we are a sovereignist opposition and why we intend to achieve our sovereignty.

That being said, as long as we are in this House, as long as we are the official opposition, we will always be what the Reform Party and the government cannot be: the voice of those who are less well off in our society.

In the time I have left, I would like to draw a thumbnail sketch of poverty. I said earlier that poverty was a very specific reality affecting 4.8 million Canadians. But not all are affected equally. There are some classes of people in society whose social status makes them more vulnerable to poverty and financial setbacks.

For a very long time, seniors were seen as the poorest in our society. So much so that, when the Senate carried out a study on poverty in the 1970s, there was an old person on the front page of its report. I am not saying today that seniors are no longer poor or that there are no people who have trouble making ends meet, but the fact is that the face of poverty is changing. At this time, the poorest members of our society are young families headed by someone under 25. Canada's poverty rate is 17 per cent. If we had a sample of 100 people, 17 of them would fit the statistical definition

of poor, in that they must spend 56 per cent of their income on clothing, food and housing.

Well 44 per cent of young families headed by someone under 25 are poor, compared to 17 per cent of all Canadians. So, if you are a family head under 25, the more family obligations you have before the age of 25, the better your chances of fitting the definition of poor, since 50 per cent of young families are poor.

Even more so for single-parent families headed by a woman under the age of 65 who has a child under the age of 18. In that case, the poverty rate raises to 56 per cent.

Also, and this is a fairly new reality, the scope of which we are only starting to realize, fewer members of our society are getting married. The number of singles is on the rise. Not so much among Canadians, but still there is a growing number of single people, of people living alone. And people who live alone and are single have about a 40 per cent chance of living below the poverty line.

This profile should have been enough to convince the minister that it is not enough to table in this House a bill to bring the federal minimum wage rate in line with the rates in effect in the provinces and more should have been done.

You will recall what the Liberals promised. In the last election campaign, the Liberals were talking about establishing a national child care system in Canada. They talked about guaranteed minimum income. Their generous spirit during the campaign translated into extremely cheap and restrictive policies and decisions regarding those people who are the less fortunate, the most disadvantages.

I would like to address a number of myths concerning poverty.

In order to be clear, and since we can express them with numbers, let me say that, in 1994, poverty levels-these are the most recent ones established by the National Council of Welfare-in large urban areas were estimated at $16,511 for a single person and at $31,061 for a family of four.

So, in 1994, a person living in a large city with a total income of $16,511 was considered to be poor. Similarly, a family of four, that is two spouses with two children, living on $31,071 was also poor. This takes us back to the sad picture that I tried to paint earlier.

Let me tell you about a number of biases that prevail and that are, of course, promoted by the Reform Party, and sometimes, albeit to a lesser degree, by the government majority.

There is this thinking, behind the proposed employment insurance measures, that poverty is first a personal matter, that people choose to be poor, that it is a deliberate choice, as if people deliberately chose to lose their jobs, to become unemployed, or to be laid off.

I think there is something terribly hypocritical about the reform proposed by the government. It wants to impose penalties on people because they are unemployed, and asks them to find work, when we are not in a position to create enough jobs for all the people who want them. There is something profoundly unacceptable about imposing penalties on people who are looking for work.

There is also this whole idea that the poor do not pay taxes, that they are wards of the state and that they are not contributing their fair share. This is interesting, because the National Anti-Poverty Organization has reminded us that most people living in poverty work part time, and that over 60 per cent of heads of families living in poverty and over 70 per cent of single people living in poverty pay taxes. In Ontario alone, it is estimated that these people contribute $160 million in taxes. So much for that myth.

There is another myth that must also be dispelled, particularly now that the Canadian government has pulled out of the Canada assistance plan. Our viewers must know that under the Canada assistance plan, in existence since 1966, the Canadian government shared half the cost of funding provincial income security programs, and that terminating this program will not only destabilize budgets in the provinces concerned, but can only mean that there will be increasingly fewer funds available for those who have nowhere else to turn.

There is this idea that people on income security are receiving way too much money, enough to meet their needs and then some. What has to be said, in the context of social programs and a debate such as this one today in the House, is that all Canadians on welfare are living under the poverty line. The highest welfare benefits are still 20 per cent below the poverty line as defined by specialized organizations. This is another myth that must be dispelled.

Another point that must be mentioned is that, by adopting a bill like the one on employment insurance, the government is following a philosophy of auditing. The idea is that the unemployed, those receiving benefits, are cheats, and that this is a way to get money back, and thus a way to improve public finances, whereas studies have proven that, while not claiming there are no cases of fraud-for there are-they account for only about 3 per cent of all accounts.

How can anyone dream of establishing a policy for putting public finances back on their feet based on a philosophy of auditing, one as shameless as the one proposed to us by the Liberal government with employment insurance, while it knows full well

that barely 3 per cent of all claimants are involved in fraud, and knows equally well that the level for income tax fraud is 20 per cent?

How is it that the government has not had the same enthusiasm? How can it be that the government has not exercised the same diligence in trying to get tax money out of the well to do, in trying to go after the richest of taxpayers? We know that there is a 20 per cent fraud rate at Revenue Canada. This would offer an opportunity to make some savings and remedy shortfalls. The government has preferred to attack the most disadvantaged rather than shoulder its responsibilities, so much so that the last budget informed us there would be fewer and fewer audit staff at Revenue Canada.

The result of this is that prejudices continue, that we continue in a situation where wrong ideas are being entertained, and where there is no hesitation to go after the most disadvantaged, very likely the category of people who have contributed most to restoring public finances.

There is one extremely important statistic in this connection which we ought never to lose sight of, which we ought never to forget, when attempting to design social policies. It is a statistic reminding us that, in Canada, income, or in other words wealth, is very unevenly distributed. If we look at the total incomes of Canadians, we find that the wealthiest fifth of the population of Canada receives nearly half of all Canadian income.

The wealthiest 20 per cent of the population gets 50 per cent of this income, while the poorest 20 per cent gets only 3.4 per cent. In other words, the wealthiest fifth of the population gets 14 times as much money as the poorest fifth.

If we really want to be serious about what we do in Parliament, if we want to do something useful, this is where we should start. This is real injustice. We know the statistics, we know the most troubling facts about the distribution of wealth, but the government's complacency, in its refusal to deal with the problems and its habit of proposing measures that are less than satisfactory have meant that our society is becoming increasingly poorer, that wealth is unequally distributed and that the wealthiest continue to get wealthier and the poorest get poorer.

[Canada Labour Code, October 29th, 1996]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-35, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 1 with the following:

"employee is usually employed or, if the employee works in more than one province, the minimum hourly rate of the province that is highest, and that is".

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in today's debate, at report stage of Bill C-35, which, for all intents and purposes, eliminates the federal minimum wage, aligning it with the minimum wages established by the provinces.

We supported Bill C-35 with the feeling that we had to do our work as the official opposition and help improve this legislation. This is why we proposed an amendment. Let me elaborate.

As you know, the federal minimum wage was set at $4 in 1986 and has not been reviewed since. The situation was a bit paradoxical: in a given territory, there could be two categories of workers. Indeed, workers doing the same job in the same company were not necessarily paid the same salary.

Three main considerations must be kept in mind when we deal with minimum wage. First, those affected are often part-time workers, employees whose jobs are precarious, and people who live below the poverty line, or just at that level. In this regard, the government should have introduced, along with the minimum wage review, a bill that would have truly targeted the causes of poverty.

We can never say it too often: the issue of minimum wage should remind parliamentarians that, in Canada, one person in six currently lives below the established poverty levels. This proportion increases in the case of certain groups, particularly single parents.

What does being poor mean in today's Quebec and Canadian society? We know what it means. It is not a reality that escapes us. We know precisely what it means. From a statistical point of view, a person is considered to be poor when he or she must spend more than 56 per cent of his or her salary on housing, food and clothes.

It would have been a good thing for the government to deal with this issue. It is hard to square the minimum wage bill with something like the Employment Insurance Act, which is a factor in poverty, because we know for a fact that only 38 per cent of the labour force will qualify under that legislation.

The amendment we are presenting today introduces a mobility provision whereby a worker employed by a company operating interprovincially, or conducting business in two or more provinces, will receive the minimum wage that is most to his advantage. It is a cause for some concern that the government did not think of this.

When the minister appeared before the committee, we pointed out to him that the situation was, of course, clear when a worker was employed by Ontario. When he works in an area coming under federal jurisdiction but the head office of the company or the place where he works is in Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Prince Edward Island, understandably everything is crystal clear, and he is paid the minimum wage in effect in that province.

But what will happen when this same worker is required to work in one or more provinces, when there is no set place of work? Such a situation can arise. With the advent of telework, the whole question of interprovincial mobility and, of course, interprovincial transport, this is more than just an isolated case. Had the official opposition not been vigilant, there would have been an omission in the act that must most definitely be corrected today.

I would remind members that the intention of the amendment is to have the legislation spell out very clearly that, when a worker is

called upon to provide services or work in more than one place within the Canadian common market, he will be paid the highest rate.

You know how widely the minimum wage varies in Canada. It ranges from $5 in certain provinces to $7 in British Columbia, the most generous province in this connection and undoubtedly the one with the most favourable financial situation.

I would like to emphasize, for the benefit of viewers, just how much the situation varies. This must be borne in mind. We are certainly not talking about a uniform situation where the minimum wage is concerned.

I will give the example of Alberta, where the minimum wage is $5. In British Columbia, it is $7; in Prince Edward Island it will be raised to $5.40; in Manitoba it is $5.40; in New Brunswick, $5.50; in Nova Scotia, $5.35; in Ontario, $6.85; in Quebec, $6.70; in Saskatchewan, $5.35; in Newfoundland, $5.25; in the Northwest Territories, $7; and in the Yukon, $6.86.

It could, therefore, be a great temptation for a employer with interprovincial mobility to decide that the place of employment of a given worker is a specific province. If a worker works in three or four provinces, for example, the employer could have his choice of province. He could say: "I consider that the place of work to which the worker is attached is the province with the lowest minimum wage." This is a trap which must be avoided for, as we have seen, there is a disparity between provincial wage levels.

When speaking of minimum wage, we must keep in mind that often non-unionized workers are involved, people who lack the protection of a large union to which they pay dues, which looks after the rights of workers, which is certainly not the case for minimum wage earners.

Generally speaking, this minimum wage covers 10 per cent of people in the work force. Ten per cent of workers therefore come under federal jurisdiction. Obviously, therefore, the bulk of workers are in areas where legislation other than that of the federal government applies. Nevertheless, 10 per cent of the work force is involved in the sectors of transportation, banking and communications particularly, but not exclusively, affected by Bill C-35. Of that 10 per cent, a very large majority, which the minister estimates at 60 per cent, are not protected by a union and work at minimum wage.

It is, therefore, important to ensure that, if the government were preparing to defeat the official opposition amendment to Bill C-35-which I doubt, since I believe the parliamentary secretary is nodding that he will support the amendment by the official opposition-but at any rate, if the government were preparing to defeat the opposition amendment, well, then we would find ourselves in a legal vacuum. In the case of workers with several different places of work, working in more than one province, workers having to move about within the broad Canadian common market, it could be extremely tempting for the employer to make a decision that would not be to their advantage, choosing to attach them to the place of work where the minimum wage was lowest, to the workers' disadvantage.

I will close my remarks by saying that, today, we are just beginning the process. Bill C-35 is the first indication that the government intends to review part I of the Canada Labour Code, as the hon. member for Québec is well aware-and I know she is very concerned about the plight of workers today. Parts II and III will also be reviewed.

This review process has given rise to considerable debate on, for instance, the possible unionization of the RCMP and the issue of replacement workers. In report after report, year after year, the government has been urged to bring peace to the workplace and introduce anti-scab legislation that make the use of replacement workers an unfair practice and as such subject to sanctions by the Canada Labour Board. I know that the hon. member for Bourassa, a long-standing member of the labour movement, has some very specific proposals in mind.

So as part of this review process, it will be very important to ensure, of course, that the Canada Labour Code is the locus for establishing a certain balance of forces, where the legislation defines a number of positions to be used in dealing with future labour disputes. But I think it is also important to ensure, in 1996 and in the years to come, that the Canada Labour Code is also a weapon against poverty. Why not consider including provisions in the Canada Labour Code that would set limits on working hours and overtime?

The minister told me he was regularly asked to authorize overtime in the private sector because a federal provision says that the minister's authorization is required for work in excess of the statutory number of hours. I think, at a time when one Canadian out of six lives in poverty, in other words, 2.8 million Canadians in all Canadian provinces, that we should ensure that the Canada Labour Code is also a weapon against poverty.

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank Myriam Goodwin for having sent to the Secretary of State what he had to say about Industry Canada. The real issue is that there is currently no support fund for industry conversion.

I challenge the Secretary of State to tell us today that Technology Partnerships Canada has actual funds available for feasibility studies, so that we can truly change production technologies. The fact is there is no such fund.

In spite of the commitment made during the election campaign by the Prime Minister's team to allocate specific funds for conversion, this has not been done. Let me remind you that, if nothing is done, 10,000 jobs will be lost. We cannot remain impassive to this situation.

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, could you please let me know when there will be only one minute left, because I am announcing right now that we will be moving an amendment.

I am really convinced that the official opposition is taking on its responsibilities and is doing its job by apprising the House of the seriousness of the financial situation, and therefore the social situation, in Montreal; it is sounding an alarm that this government must hear.

I want to talk about one characteristic in particular and that is the defense economy. Before that, however, let me remind you that people from outside this House, people who are not sovereignists and who were not elected under the Bloc Quebecois banner, are joining their voices to that of the official opposition today to express their concern over the situation in Montreal.

Let me remind you that, a few days ago, the mayor of Montreal, who is after all the official spokesperson for his city, tabled a brief with the commission on taxation. In this brief, he presented several facts that government members should try to understand. If Standing Orders allowed me to be more specific I would do so, but I will resist temptation because, as you all know, I abide by the rules.

The mayor quoted a recent Canadian Council on Social Development report stating that 22 per cent of all Montrealers are classified as poor and that, in Montreal, one child out of five does not get enough to eat. Furthermore, there is a problem with the rental housing stock because 60 per cent of all housing units were built before the sixties and now, it must be said that all the taxes Quebecers send to Ottawa are no longer applied to the maintenance and construction of social housing.

Someone reminded us that employment growth is very slow in Montreal; Montreal is losing jobs, particulary in the manufacturing sector. Who among us, whether a member of government or of the opposition, could rise in the House today and speak seriously? I am not thinking about the few amusing comments that we heard earlier because you will admit that this is not the kind of talk we should be hearing. Who could rise and say that the federal government really took some significant measures in order to solve the critical situation prevailing in Montreal? It is so true.

This debate today is not a device to garner popularity. We all stand to benefit from Montreal doing well. Montreal is my passion, my life, my city even since I was born. I have lived in Montreal all my life, always in the same neighbourhood. I will not go as far as to say that I lived in the same house all that time, I did not. But if there is someone in this House who is familiar with the back streets of Montreal, the sheds, the Olympic Stadium and the subway, it is yours truly.

I know Montreal like the back of my hand. And today, I am not too pleased to see that Montreal has become a city of poverty, a city on the decline. We must recognize that, beyond the changing international circumstances the secretary of state keeps referring to, there were deliberate choices made that have undermined the economic vitality of Montreal.

Let me give a specific example. This way, the secretary of state will not complain later that I talked in generalities. He knows that I do my homework; rigour is a quality of mine he appreciates. I am telling him that what hurt Montreal was a decision made by a minister from Ontario, who deliberately chose to weaken the defence component of the Montreal economy.

The secretary of state spoke earlier and he was right. I agree with one thing he said. Two in fact. The first one was when he said that I am a good MP and that I had invited him to come and visit my riding. I thank him for his support to the SIDAC Ontario merchants. L'économie de la défense? I have always thought that economic problems were non-partisan issues.

The second thing he said that I agree with is that there is in Montreal a strong area that makes us proud, the aerospace industry, and that Montreal is the only region in Canada where airplanes and helicopters can be built from nose to tail so to speak, without having any part of the aircraft shipped in from outside. That was what we called the defence component of the economy, on which nearly 30,000 jobs were dependent in Montreal.

This was one program we were benefiting from equitably. We rose time and time again in this House to complain about being treated unfairly. There was only one program in the history of the federal government where Quebec ever got its fair share and it was DIPP. This is not a venerial desease, it stands for Defence Industry Productivity Program.

Fifty six per cent of the aerospace industry is concentrated in Quebec and in Montreal in particular. Quebec would usually receive about 50 per cent of program funds. We must keep in mind that, in good years, this program had a $300 million budget, of which Quebec would receive 50 or 51 per cent. Why? Because the flagship aerospace industry was based in Montreal.

What did the Minister of Industry, who comes from Ontario, do when he realized this could benefit Montreal? He abolished the program to all intents and purposes. This year, DIPP has a $22 million budget and, in 1998, it will cease to exist. Is this the kind of decisions the Secretary of State is proud of when he comes to Montreal to talk about federal support for that region?

Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the defence industry will need help in the next few years? We need help. I want to be clear. I am asking the Secretary of State in a friendly, non-partisan way-because we are both from Montreal-to put in place a fund to help defence industries convert to civilian applications.

What you do not know and I will tell you is that, if nothing is done within two years, 10,000 jobs will be lost in the defence industry in the greater Montreal area. DIPP could have been a way for the government to take concrete action and support industries that need help in converting to other uses.

I am not shy. I went to see public officials. I went to that bastion of intellectual reflection that is Industry Canada, and I wish you had been with me. I asked industry officials to tell me what they thought of DIPP. They told me it was a great program.

I have here documents I will not use. But I saw documents I could table anytime if the Secretary of State asked me to. According to these documents, every dollar spent on DIPP generates the following economic benefits: $25 in sales, $18 in exports, $4 in research and development. Industrial performance shows that the industry was successful in converting to more desirable applications. This allowed the industry to grow and be ranked sixth in the world. The aeronautical industry is recording trade surpluses.

If nothing is done in Montreal, where the defence industry is concentrated, 10,000 jobs will be lost. If the Secretary of State is serious, he will take action. The conversion of the defence industry to civilian uses is important.

We need market studies, we need help in finding niches, new products upstream or downstream of what we already produce. I hope I have been convincing in my serenity and that the Secretary of State will not turn a deaf ear.

I move:

That the amendment be amended by adding immediately after the word "of" the following:

"the Greater".

[Supply, October 24th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I always thought the Reform member was a serious and informed man, and I am sorry to advise the House that I was mistaken. I think he is, to say the least, unacquainted with Quebec's situation, which the Reform Party has itself admitted to being, and I can reassure him today by telling him that, with such a statement, he can rest assured that his party will be considered to be many generations away from Quebec.

The hon. member stood in this House, and showed a lack of consideration that had not been seen for a long time, to tell us that the cause of economic hardship in Montreal-we know that, as we are speaking, Montreal is one of the capitals of poverty-is the language situation, Bill 101 and, finally, that it is because a majority of people want to speak their language that things are going badly on the economic level.

You will understand that the hon. member is just repeating the same old platitudes, the same obsolete approaches, which are not serious at all and are based on absolutely no analysis. I think what the hon. member must be reminded of is that there is a nation in Quebec. There are people who speak French, who control a territory, who have a history, who have a legal system, and that is called a nation. You know very well that a nation is destined to become sovereign.

Having said that, if the hon. member wants to look up the history of this concept, I refer him to the recent regional commission and to the bill that was introduced in the national assembly. I speak about this with firsthand knowledge, because I was a member of that commission, and I have excellent memories connected with of it.

It was recognized that there is in Quebec an English speaking founding minority to which were conferred very specific rights over the control of a number of institutions. I know the hon. member is aware that it is possible to take courses in English from childhood to university in Quebec. It is possible to be served in English to obtain health services in Quebec. When it is rrequested specifically, it is also possible to receive correspondence from public authorities in English.

What the hon. member did not understand is that we are saying that, collectively, we think a language is not insignificant. The common language of a nation is not something to be treated lightly, because it is a rallying code, an identity code. That is how we can communicate with one another.

As sovereignists, we are for people speaking or understanding many languages-English, Chinese, Spanish, Portuguese. It was Montaigne who said that to learn a new language was to learn a new way of thinking. As parliamentarians, I believe we all agree with that.

That said, our point is that our situation is not the same in Quebec as in Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan or other provinces, since we have the specific mission of preserving this

language of ours which is unique in North America. That is why the legislator passed Bill 101 and, later, Bill 178.

I would like our hon. colleague to tell us whether he agrees that, since we are a nation enthusiastically moving toward sovereignty, the legislator acted responsibly in ensuring that French-speaking citizens in these parts of America can continue to do so in the next few years?