Réal Ménard

[Public Service Staff Relations Act, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I was not referring to his physical presence, I was referring to his intellectual standpoint. After sitting in this House for the past three years, I am well aware that we cannot mention the fact that certain people are not in the House. I apologize if I gave the impression I might want to disobey any of the Standing Orders.

What I want to make clear to those listening to us and to all the hon. members in this House is that it is difficult to follow the government in matters of labour relations. We agreed, the official opposition agreed that we were going to modernize the entire labour code in September; I am the labour critic for my party. When we talk about the labour code, we are talking about part I, which refers to unfair treatment in the workplace, part II, which covers workplace health and safety, and part III, which involves minimum standards.

The proof of what I am saying is that until now the bills that have been tabled on labour relations have been minor ones. We changed the minimum wage to put it in line with provincial rates. By delegating authority, we passed control of nuclear energy over to the provinces.

There was a tacit understanding with the Minister of Labour to the effect that, since the legislation was so important, no fundamental changes would be made until the committee was able to review the entire labour code. How come this argument was not applied in the case of the 16,000 RCMP officers? It would have been more honest for the government to have asked us to study this in committee.

It would have been even more honest, given the situation, which is as follows. There are a total of 18,000 officers involved, and 16,000 of those are demanding the right to negotiate. We are in a situation where there are a variety of tribunals, and I know the Bloc Quebecois critic for the Solicitor General has referred to the various common law tribunals. These count for something in our society. What is being said is that the 16,000 RCMP officers are entitled to collective bargaining. They ought to be considered employees of Treasury Board. This is something of significance, after all.

I am issuing a challenge to the ministers, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice who is currently in the House, to give us one of the examples he has in mind of a situation comparable to that of the RCMP. There is a rule that applies to labour relations. That rule, which has taken on the shape of an underlying principle, is that people are entitled to be involved in determining their working conditions. Not only determining them, but negotiating them as well, given that our society agrees that one of the forms of freedom of expression includes the right to freely negotiate a collective agreement.

That principle, when applied in complete logic, has a corollary. That corollary is that an outside body ought to be the one to make an interpretation when there is any disloyal action within a workplace. RCMP officers are rightfully saying that the RCMP Commissioner, while no doubt an honest citizen, ends up being both judge and party to the action, since he is called upon to act as an administrator and at the same time to settle differences concerning overtime, patrols, mobility and employee benefits. This cannot help but lead to a tainted atmosphere, since it is not compatible with the basic principles of healthy labour relations to have someone be both judge and judged in the same matter.

It is hard to follow the government. Its logic is dubious, to say the least. As I have already said, we had agreed with government not to go ahead with any major legislation on labour relations. Not only is it not respecting this principle, government is reintroducing it.

What happened? I think the RCMP was quite clear on this. The former Minister of Labour, who now holds the heritage portfolio-though we do not really know how things will turn out because, as those who follow current events know, the former minister could become the new minister-had appointed an independent task force chaired by Professor Sims, of Edmonton. You are signifying

your assent, so I gather you have followed those events with the same enthusiasm as I did.

The Sims task force, including Mr. Blouin from Quebec, had three members at that time. They said very clearly in their report that RCMP staff members should have the right to collective bargaining and that the RCMP should be recognized as an employer under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Board. This is more than reasonable.

Had you been in their shoes, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would have showed as much common sense. These people claim the right to collective bargaining, but at the same time, they recognize that their specific responsibilities require them to protect the public, investigate, provide security services-especially in embassies- and that they are under contract to eight provinces on the Canadian territory.

These people show such civic-mindedness, a sense of responsibility and a will to serve their country-which, in truth, is made up of two countries on its territory-that they are not asking for the right to strike; they only claim the right to free collective bargaining. They are willing to submit to binding arbitration. In fact this is more and more the case at the municipal level.

I think you have to be really dishonest, shortsighted, obtuse like this government to introduce today a bill like Bill C-30 as if it were the most natural thing in the world, as if the past meant nothing and as if there were no agreement on developments in modernization of the Canada Labour Code.

Those of us in the official opposition, one of the best you will ever see, have made it very clear that we will do everything to kill this bill, because we consider it undemocratic and because it denies the fundamental right of 16,000 workers in the public service-

[Public Service Staff Relations Act, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am not very happy, nor am I in a very good mood. I cannot fathom that at the end of the session we are faced with a bill like Bill C-30. I hope you are going to do everything in your power to block this bill that might have found favour in the 19th century, but in the 20th century, when we have a charter and since we had agreed with the Minister of Labour-by the way, where is the Minister of Labour, where is the Solicitor General?-we had agreed on a sort of moratorium regarding labour relations with the minister-

[Human Rights, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the tribunal ordered the federal government to stop the use immediately, in a number of federal texts, of any definition of spouse that discriminates against same sex partners in a common law relationship.

Could the Minister of Justice tell us whether he intends to comply with the ruling of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal?

[Human Rights, June 14th, 1996]

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

Yesterday, a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rendered a decision that will force the federal government to stop all discrimination against same sex couples by giving them the same benefits enjoyed by common law couples.

Could the Minister of Justice tell the House whether the Government of Canada intends to appeal this decision?

[Canada Labour Code, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. First of all, I want to say that the official opposition will support Bill C-35.

I just discovered that, in his own way, the Minister of Labour follows the principles of Mao Zedong because he proposed several bills in a series that, we know, will culminate in the presentation of a legislation on replacement workers and the more comprehensive reform of the labour code that the minister will propose, naturally.

We must not underestimate the impact, the importance of legislation like this one, because it affects the most vulnerable people in our society.

The minister is right to remind us that the minimum wage issue-and I will get back to this later on-is all about individuals who generally share three characteristics. More often than not they are not protected by a collective agreement. Their jobs are unsure, often in sectors more sensitive to economic contingencies. Moreover, very often these jobs are part time.

It is a good thing the government decided to put an end to a situation that was absurd for two reasons. First of all, the federal government had not increased the minimum wage since 1986; it was still at $4. Later on I will show how this $4 rate ties in with the poverty levels. We had a ridiculous situation where a worker working for a company under federal jurisdiction was not entitled to the same wage as other workers in British Columbia, Newfoundland, and Saskatchewan.

The Minister of Labour, with this bill, is correcting an unfair situation by ensuring that, in a given province, all workers will be entitled to the same minimum wage.

I have looked at this bill carefully. I want to point out that we will reach heaven once we have antiscab legislation and once we have revised as fully as possible the Canada Labour Code, which is very complex, with its three parts. I want to let the minister know that I am deeply interested in these issues. We would be very happy to work in committee, because the labour market is, as we have pointed out, about to undergo major changes.

I need only give my family as an example. I believe it is typical of what is going on in the labour market. My father is almost sixty, and has had only one career. He made an honest living, but has always worked for the same employer. I turned 34 in May-I know I do not look that old-and this is my third career. We know that, by the year 2000, workers will go through five or six careers, and that the employer-employee relationship will be considerably weakened because of the increase in home teleworking.

This means that, as lawmakers, we must look carefully at the protection we want these workers to enjoy.

The minister has introduced a bill that we will support and that covers, if I read right, six main points. To start with, the minimum wage would be harmonized with that in effect in the various provinces, and that we agree with. That is central to the bill and we support it.

Let us remember, for the benefit of our audience, perhaps, the reality of the minimum wage across the country. We have said that the federal minimum wage has not changed since 1986 and stands at $4. It Alberta, the minimum wage is $5, but a distinction is made between workers under l8 and those over 18. This distinction will be done away with. Unless I am wrong, the minister feared, rightly, that it would not stand the test of the Canadian charter of rights. Such distinctions based on age will be tolerated less and less as time goes on.

British Columbia is the wealthiest province. I do not know whether you have been to Vancouver lately, but I have and I was astonished at the meaning of wealth in a province. British Columbia has the smallest debt. There is a correlation between the debt of a province and its ability to provide services. I was surprised to find that in B.C.-to give an example with which I am familiar-25 medications are made available to people with AIDS.

You will understand, then, that this global wealth index is reflected in the minimum wage. It will come as a surprise to no one that the minimum wage in our westernmost province is the highest at $7 per hour.

Prince Edward Island, which expects to have increased its minimum wage three times between 1991 and 1997, will reach the Canadian average of $5.40.

The minimum wage in Manitoba is $5.40; in New Brunswick, it is $5.50; in Nova Scotia, it will be increased from $5.35 to $5.50 in February.

In Mike Harris' Ontario, where, as you know, the situation is not always rosy, the minimum wage is $6.85 but we understand that, with its industrial structure, Ontario may be in a better position than Quebec to support a slightly higher minimum wage.

Quebec's minimum wage is $6.45, but one might think-I do not know if the minister has a scoop on that subject, but there is a rumour going around-it could be increased in the very near future, thanks to the bread and roses operation. This beautiful operation came about because of a willingness to link social awareness and economic awareness.

In Saskatchewan, the minimum wage is $5.35; in Newfoundland, about which we have talked a lot in the House in the last few weeks, it is $4.75; in the Northwest Territories, it is $7 and in the Yukon, $6.86.

So, there is a variety of viewpoints that may appear to be discriminatory toward workers and that cannot be explained. One cannot explain why there are two rates in effect in the same province or territory.

So, the minister has done something useful in proposing a bill aimed at harmonizing the wages that will be in effect on the same territory.

Second, if Bill C-35 is passed, the general rate will apply regardless of occupation, status or work experience, which is also desirable.

Third, there are still people who do piecework and therefore are not paid by the hour. My understanding of the bill is that the minister is making provisions so that, where applicable, an employee will never get less than the minimum wage.

Fourth, as it was said, the minimum wage based on age will not be permitted any more.

And fifth, the federal government-I had some questions about that, but the issue will probably be raised in committee of the whole in a few minutes-retains the authority to clearly set the minimum wage. The minister has been discreet on that matter, but he will be able to explain it, if it is indeed the legislator's intent.

This is essentially what the minister is proposing.

I would be doubly satisfied because, as I have said, we agree with the minister's logic. We are happy to see that the proposed harmonization really provides an increase in the minimum wage, given that the federal government was the jurisdiction with the lowest wage rate. We are happy to see that workers will no longer be discriminated against because of their age.

Of course, this legislation will affect a limited number of workers, as the Code protects only 10 per cent of the workforce. According to department officials, only 2 per cent of those 10 per cent will be affected. So, while we must recognize that the legislation has limited scope, it is important for the workers concerned.

I was pleased to hear the minister saying that, all through his career, which I followed from a distance, he has always stood up for the poor in our society. This awareness was apparent when we discussed the Program for Older Workers Adjustment or issues related to social legislation. The fact is that we witnessed a considerable erosion of what the minimum wage represents in relation to the policies needed to fight poverty.

Let me remind the minister that he should-and perhaps would like to in the coming days-review the report tabled by the National Council of Welfare, as I did last night. The report was tabled in October 1993 and is entitled Incentives and Disincentives to Work .

The National Council of Welfare is an organization which is affiliated with the Department of Human Resources Development and which must regularly report on the evolution of poverty levels.

I simply want to tell you about what the 1993 report said: comparing the reality of the minimum wage in 1976 and in 1992 leads to two findings. In 1976, most people who were paid the minimum wage had an income above the poverty line. In 1992, in every province, the minimum wage was below the poverty line.

It goes without saying that this situation is not the exclusive responsibility of the Minister of Labour, but involves the whole issue of policy directions. But the fact is that, as we speak, the minimum wage in effect in every province is below the poverty line.

This means that, for some people, there is no incentive to work. I often meet, in my riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, in Montreal, people who have difficult choices to make. When they are beneficiaries of income security programs, it is sometimes more advantageous for them, particularly couples with children, to remain on these programs than to work. As a society, we have to have to wonder about this.

I know the Minister of Human Resources Development also has something to say about that, but the fact is that the minimum wage is now below the poverty line.

Let us take 1976 as an example. Collectively speaking, 1976 was a particular year. The minister surely recalls that, in 1976, a very progressive government came to power in Quebec. It is therefore a benchmark I like to refer to. In 1976, in Newfoundland, a person with a salary comparable to the minimum wage had an annual income of $5,200, an amount which was 5 percent above the poverty line.

In 1992, the minimum wage in Newfoundland gave an income of $9,880, which was 74 per cent of the amount needed to be at the poverty line. As you can see, there has been significant erosion of what the minimum wage buys for those who must live with it.

The same thing goes for Prince Edward Island. In 1976, the minimum wage meant an income of $4,992, which was 3 per cent above the poverty line; in 1992, this income was $9,880, or 76 per cent of the amount needed to reach the poverty line. I could give the numbers for all 10 provinces. This is a fact that the Minister of Labour, who invites us to ponder, should not forget.

Without underestimating the scope of Bill C-35, of which the Bloc Quebecois supports both the principle and the self-explanatory references, it would have been interesting if the government had introduced a single bill proposing to harmonize the minimum wage and concrete measures to fight poverty.

Let us never forget that. I hope we shall never discuss social policy or make reference to the minimum wage without keeping in mind that, overall, Canadian society is poorer than ever. There are in Canadian society people who are far from getting richer. Poverty is reaching classes that until now were believed to be protected from it.

I would like to remind the House of what the National Council of Welfare told us in its report last year. It wrote that 4.8 million children, women and men, that is one Canadian out of six, live in poverty. Poverty is defined as spending more than 56 per cent of one's income for basic needs such as clothing, food and housing. A person who spends more than that for basic needs is poor, according to the National Council of Welfare.

One Canadian out of six, or 16 per cent of the Canadian population, is in that situation. We have a fairly precise knowledge of the patterns of poverty. For example, single parent families headed by females are now significantly poorer. In 1994, the poverty rate of single mothers aged less than 65 with children under 18 was 57 per cent.

Now, one Canadian out of six, or 16 per cent of the population, lives in poverty, but the situation is much worse in certain segments of our society. We know that 57 per cent of lone-parent families headed by women with children under 18 years of age live in poverty. There is something very worrisome about this grim reality.

I appreciate the work done by the National Council of Welfare, because it showed us some possible ways to eradicate poverty. Since we have two ministers sitting side by side, two ministers from Montreal, which is quite something, who are committed to promoting liberty and equality, I want to take this opportunity to remind the House that the National Council of Welfare indicated that, if the Canadian government had invested $15 billion, we would have been able to eradicate poverty in just one year. Since I cannot say that to the Reform Party, I have to tell the government majority.

I am now quoting, for the listening enjoyment of the Minister of Labour, the National Council of Welfare: "In spite of the grim reality, it is not wishful thinking to think we will win the war against poverty. According to Statistics Canada, to help all the poor improve their lot would have cost $15 billion in 1994". This is a huge amount. Of course, we are not saying this is insignificant, but it is surely not exaggerated for a country where the federal, provincial and territorial governments spent some $350 billion in 1994 and where the value of all produced goods and services exceeded $750 billion. Is this not a reason to be hopeful? Should this not be the way to go?

It would have been very interesting for the Minister of Labour to put forward with this legislation a more general one providing job creation and full employment measures aimed at getting people out of poverty.

To conclude, I ask for the unanimous consent to refer Bill C-35 to a committee of the whole after the intervention of the Reform Party.

[Aids Control, June 12th, 1996]

No respect for the conference in Vancouver, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Prime Minister confirm, as he is being asked by his five major national partners on the AIDS issue, that the current funding for the strategy will be maintained beyond 1997? This is important for AIDS victims.

[Aids Control, June 12th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

From July 7 to 12, people from all over the world will meet in Vancouver to discuss AIDS. In Canada alone, it is estimated that 15,000 people have AIDS, while about 50,000 more are HIV positive. Canada has had a national AIDS strategy since 1990. It has now reached phase II. However, the health minister has repeatedly refused to extend the strategy when it expires, in March 1997.

Given the imminence of the conference in Vancouver, will the Prime Minister use this opportunity to tell AIDS victims, community groups and members of the scientific community that there will be a phase III to the National AIDS Strategy?

[Supply, June 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the catastrophic decision by the Minister of Natural Resources, namely the closure of one of the most outstanding of scientific projects, I would like to know whether the minister visited the Varennes installations before making her decision.

If not, would the minister agree, by asking the MP concerned to organize a meeting, to make an on site visit to the tokamak installations? Perhaps the minister is one of those people who learns best by seeing things, and she needs to actually go there. If she goes to the Varennes region and meets the people there, perhaps she will change her mind.

[Supply, June 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the minister had to say and my conclusion is that she would be well advised to find out more about Quebec. It is clear that she has been unable to identify accurately the difficulties facing Quebec, and in particular has failed to make the comparisons that must be made concerning investment in Ontario as opposed to Quebec.

I have two questions for her. Is the minister prepared to admit that, when Quebec and Ontario are compared, there really is a difference between research contracts awarded to federal laboratories? Does she agree, and on what figures does she base her answer? And if she does not agree, can she tell us why and on the basis of what figures? The first department to identify this difference was the Quebec Federal Office of Regional Development. It funded a study that mentioned a $4 billion difference.

I think that the minister will have to agree with the official opposition's evaluation of R and D spending. Can the minister again tell us what she intends to do to find alternative funding, which can come from the National Research Council of Canada or the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council? These are, after all, organizations that give out grants and have budgets of close to $400 million.

I would like the minister, out of respect for Quebec, for its scientific community, and for the R and D deficit it is assuming, to rise today in her place and promise, as she did before the committee, but to now do so clearly here in the House so that it really means something, and so that among our fellow parliamentarians we can keep our promises. I would like the minister to rise and tell us what she intends to do to find alternative funding so that we can save the tokamak facility. This is why we are here as the official opposition and I think that we are fulfilling our responsibilities. That is the only real way to defend the interests of Quebec.

[Supply, June 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, you may be sure that if the official opposition has decided to dedicate one of its opposition days to research and development, it is because we have very serious reasons for wanting to see corrective action taken. I hope that the Minister of Natural Resources, who we just heard is going to take part in the debate, will understand fully the gravity of the situation.

Before going into detail, I know that my colleague, the member for Verchères, will give a complete picture of the discrimination being suffered by the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion, since, as you know, the government is getting ready to close down unilaterally what is undoubtedly one, if not the, major natural sciences facility in Quebec.

I hope that the minister will take advantage of this debate to honour a commitment she made when she appeared before the natural resources sub-committee, and give a solemn undertaking to find alternative funding, because that is the solution.

We can understand that the government must put its fiscal house in order. But why is it that for decades now-in fact, it started with the creation of the National Research Council of Canada in the 1950s-Quebec has systematically and consistently lost out when it comes to research and development?

So that it is very clear what we are talking about during the debate, I would like to propose that we define research and development as work that is creative in nature and that is carried out in a systematic fashion in order to increase the stock of knowledge or devise new applications for this knowledge.

Why is research and development so important and why have all industrialized countries that have taken charge of their development been concerned with having a rigorous and consistent policy, which incidentally is not the case for Canada, which, as we speak, still has no systematic research and development policy? Unbelievably, its policy is completely ad hoc.

Research and development is important because it adds to knowledge, and it adds to value added, obviously enabling us to establish links with the important export sector.

It is nonetheless very obvious that Canada's research and development performance is very weak, and I am anxious to hear what the Minister of Natural Resources has to say about this, because all industrialized countries do R and D. On average,

industrialized countries devote 2.3 per cent of their GDP to research and development policies or investments.

Imagine, for a few years already, Canada has been stagnating with investments amounting to 1.5 per cent. Simply put, of all industrialized countries, only Italy, Iceland and Ireland show a worse performance than Canada. Sweden, Japan, Switzerland, the United States, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, and Austria perform better than Canada with regard to R & D.

What is worrisome and should bring Quebec ministers to spring into action is the systemic discrimination against Quebec regarding R & D. Some would say that, looking at the system as a whole, there might be some discrepancies in certain sectors, which is acceptable.

But who in the government, which minister is going to be frank and lucid enough to explain to us how it is that there is a four billion dollar a year difference between investments made by the federal government in a province like Ontario and its investments in Quebec? How can that be explained?

I know that the Minister of Natural Resources will be at a loss to explain this. How can she explain that, year in and year out, there are between 25 and 30 federal research laboratories in Quebec and close to 80 in Ontario? Are there factors we should know about which could explain this state of affairs?

I will give you more precise numbers to show that, if the official opposition has decided to talk about R & D, it is not on a whim, it is not because we think that this is only a bad stretch we have to go through.

The Minister of Natural Resources, who is the most incendiary of all ministers in this government, must be aware of the discrimination Quebec has been the victim of for the last three decades. The government's systematic interventions and policies in this respect started in the 1950s and have been going on now for three, almost four decades.

It found a way to concentrate most of its investments in what the member for Rimouski-Témiscouata rightly called intra muros projects; namely, the federal government spends around seven billion dollars on its R & D policies according to two principles. It does it in its laboratories, the number of which is estimated at about 177.

The natural resources minister will certainly share the indignation I feel when I see that the government did not see fit to establish a regional development policy in the area of research and development. Had it been serious, it would have ensured that Atlantic Canada, western Canada, Ontario and Quebec could benefit equally from investments in R and D.

I understand this is not a mathematical question. But when there is a difference such as the one that exists between Quebec and Ontario, a difference supported by the government, what are we to think? I challenge the minister. When we analysed the merits of the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion project, which involved Hydro-Quebec and the Institut national de la recherche scientifique, what scientist in Quebec would have thought that somebody would be foolhardy enough-and I think irresponsible would be the right word to use here-to cancel such a project?

Everybody agrees that the minister was a brilliant lawyer in the past and I challenge her to rise in this House and name one scientist in Quebec who supports her decision. The fact is that there are two major research and development projects in Quebec: the Canadian Space Agency, whose $300 million budget was reduced to about $200 million, and the Varennes project.

It is quite simple: in the area of research and development, especially natural sciences, whenever we looked for examples of major projects, we had two of them before us: the Canadian Space Agency, which was cut, and the project under the responsibility of the Minister of Natural Resources.

The merits of this project were unanimously recognized, first of all, because $70 million was invested in infrastructure and second, because 100 researchers with Ph. D.'s in engineering, in physics and in other fields that are extremely important to economic development were involved.

Everyone was in favour. The whole scientific community had hopes of a promising future for this project. Then, without warning, the government had the nerve to unilaterally and shamelessly cut one of Quebec's most promising projects. That is what federalism means in the area of research and development: the inability to arbitrate, to strike a balance that could have helped Quebec in the past and that could still help it today.

What corrective measures is the government proposing? In fact, the whole history of research and development since the 1950s is a history of systemic discrimination against Quebec. Let me say, in closing, that only in one program did Quebec play a significant role: the Defence Industry Productivity Program or DIPP, which is understandable since the Canadian aerospace and aircraft manufacturing industries are concentrated in Montreal. Believe it or not, this government has the nerve and the chutzpah to dismantle this program, so that Quebec is now losing out in all areas of research and development.