Réal Ménard

[Department Of Labour Act, June 3rd, 1994]

Twenty in Ville d'Anjou. Furthermore, we hear about an opting out agreement which reminds us a lot of the Conservative regime, characterized by nepotism, favouritism and insensitivity to workers.

This reality does not concern only Montreal. It is my duty, as the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, to speak of the situation in Montreal. But I asked our colleagues in the Reform Party to come up with some figures for their provinces and I got some more figures for other provinces which have more traditional sectors and are concerned with major economic changes.

You will be surprised to hear this, but I have figures for Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia, according to the latest figures available, ten businesses obtained their certificate of compliance for POWA and 36 were excluded, also on the basis of the number of laid-off workers.

The same thing happened in Ontario, a somewhat more dynamic region, the country's industrial heartland, where 184 lay-offs were certified in 1993-94, and the workers in 663 companies were excluded. I must remind the House that workers are eligible on a collective basis before being eligible on an individual basis.

That is to say that there is something in this program that must be reviewed. For my part, I have been speaking on that matter for a long time. You know, in politics, we develop a special interest for some matters; for me, it was POWA, because I am from a mostly working-class neighbourhood.

As a matter of fact, I made several representations to my colleagues from the Liberal Party and the Reform Party to whom I want to address my thanks for their co-operation; I think we are going to agree that some amendments are needed.

In fairness, I do not want to leave our viewers with the impression that we are the first to address this issue. MPs in the previous Parliament, particularly the Liberals when they were sitting on this side, also called for amendments to the agreement on POWA on several occasions. And if it is not against our Standing Orders, I would like to quote one our most distinguished colleagues, the member for Saint-Léonard, that we are delighted to see participate in today's debate. I know that we share the same views on this issue and I am very pleased about that, because he also represents the Montreal region and I know he is sensitive to the reality of non-eligible workers.

In short, let me quote some of his most famous words: "Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure to table a petition signed by 2,657 Canadians who call upon the government to amend the regulations concerning the Program for Older Worker Adjustment.

As you know, in the metropolitan region, those employed by companies of less of 100 employees are not eligible. It is a case of discrimination-this is the term used by the hon. member for Saint-Léonard-when we know that in Canada, 98 per cent of companies are small and medium-sized firms with less than 100 employees".

What are our chances of getting his support in this very important matter for the workers of Montreal and to what extent can he have some influence within his government? I can talk in a non-partisan way because this is a question which concerns all members of Parliament. Whether we are members of the

Reform Party, the Bloc or even the government, we all know what it means to lose one's job at 55 years of age. Disruptions can happen in our economic community over which we have no control.

At 55, after having devoted one's life to a job-but you are not of that generation, you are a young woman-workers have given 20, 25 or even 30 years to the job market. We have no right to leave these people without adequate financial protection. I see that the hon. member for Saint-Léonard is nodding in agreement.

Such is the intention of the bill. There is nothing complicated in what we are saying, nothing original, I admit. We are saying what the Liberals said before us, what Quebecers are saying through their minister of finance, Mr. Bourbeau, and through the mayor of Montreal, and what the labour confederations are asking for. What we are saying is that Montreal's work environment does not prepare workers who could be laid off in the sectors which are more likely to be affected.

It is in this context that I ask today, innocently but with enthusiasm, the consent of the House to put the following motion. I move, seconded by the member for Bourassa:

That Bill C-243 presented in my name, be deemed read for the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development.

I conclude by mentioning that I am convinced this bill must be examined by a committee. I want to let the government know that I am open-minded. I am willing to change my mind if some dimensions of the debate have escaped me. I am open-minded and I know the members are sensitive to the reality faced by Montreal workers. I am confident they will give the necessary consent in this matter.

[Department Of Labour Act, June 3rd, 1994]

moved that Bill C-243, an Act to amend the Department of Labour Act (eligibility for assistance for long-service employees), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I will start by saying that since I had the pleasure of being elected to this House to represent the people of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, I never felt so strongly that I was speaking on a subject that is important for Montreal. It is important for Montreal, of course, but for other places as well, because the main purpose of the bill before hon. members of this House is to correct a terrible form of discrimination suffered by workers in Montreal and elsewhere.

I will have an opportunity to explain this discrimination in detail. First, with your permission, I would like to remind those listening to us this afternoon about POWA. This is not the first time that we have discussed POWA in this House. Members previously elected to Parliament, including the members for Saint-Léonard, Saint-Denis and Westmount-Saint-Henri, spoke many times in the past to call strongly for major improvements to POWA.

I am therefore pleased to speak because I agree with what my hon. colleagues said in the past. POWA is a federal-provincial agreement, financed 70 per cent by the central government and 30 per cent by the participating provinces. It seeks to compen-

sate and provide income support for laid-off workers. As you know, in these tough economic times, there are many lay-offs.

The joint federal-provincial agreement on POWA sets forth some criteria for workers to qualify. The agreement provides that workers will be eligible depending on the size of the municipality or community in which the company is located.

Let me give you the example of Montreal. When people are laid off in the Greater Montreal, something which has occurred a number of times in the past, the agreement provides that, to be eligible for POWA, a minimum of 100 workers must have been laid off. This is the first condition.

Consequently, before a worker can be eligible for the program on an individual basis, some important collective considerations related to the major change occurring, will determine whether that worker is eligible or not.

The second condition to qualify is that 8 per cent of laid off workers must be 55 or over. In Montreal, this criteria does not present great problems, compared to the rule requiring that a minimum of 100 workers be laid off. I will come back to this later on.

The Program for Older Worker Adjustment has been in existence since 1989. Quebec and seven other provinces have signed this agreement, which replaces the former Work Adjustment Training program, or WAT, more specifically targeted to the furniture industry and other traditional sectors. The proposed bill-and I point it out, because I feel it is important to do so-is designed to correct a terrible form of discrimination against urban centres with a population of over 500,000, including Montreal.

It is important to keep in mind this basic and unavoidable reality to understand what is going on in Montreal and what conditions must be met by a Montreal worker to be eligible in case of a mass lay-off-which, as you know, is a breach of contract on the employer's part-including the condition to the effect that at least 100 workers must have been laid off.

If you look at the lay-offs which have occurred in the recent past in Montreal, you see that they took place in very specific industries-textile, clothing and retail-which, of course, are not the only ones in trouble, but are nevertheless experiencing particular problems due to national and international factors.

I point this out is because between 70 and 80 per cent of these industries-textile, clothing and retail-are concentrated in Montreal. This is particularly true for the textile and clothing industries which, as you will recall, underwent a first stage of industrialization. When selecting a site for their facilities, this being one of the location factors to use an economic expression, most textile and clothing industries chose Montreal. This is why 70 to 80 per cent of those industries are now concentrated in the Montreal region. And this is where the problem lies since, on average, textile and clothing industries have 20, 25 or 30 employees.

It is so true-and I will have the opportunity to come back to this issue later-that 78 per cent of all requests submitted last year under POWA in the Montreal area were turned down, because workers were not eligible. And because this program is particularly unsuitable to the traditional industries and harmful to Montreal workers, a consensus was reached, a rare feat in our political system, and the Liberal Party in Quebec, through Mr. Bourbeau, formerly the minister of manpower, now the minister of finance, expressed its wish for a review of the program in order to bring the minimum of 100 down to 20. The Quebec government, first under Mr. Bourassa and now under Mr. Johnson, expressed its desire that this program be modified.

The same wish was expressed by the mayor of Montreal, the major central labour bodies and all the people who are somewhat concerned by Montreal's economic development and the minimum social justice workers are entitled to expect and who have noticed some problems with POWA. In a rare show of unanimity, all parties involved called for changes to this program.

And yet, this is the second version of POWA. A first agreement was signed in 1988 and renegotiated last year by the previous government, which was not, of course, a Liberal government. The Conservative government did not yield to all the demands of these people who know better than anybody else the real problems of Montreal's workers.

I have very concrete figures that will show to our colleagues how this POWA program is not suitable for Montreal's workers. The proof is that, in 1993-94, in the clothing industry, 75 businesses qualified, which means that their employees were eligible, and exactly 359 companies did not qualify because of the minimum of 100 workers.

Thus, there were four times more businesses that did not qualify than those that did, even if there were massive lay-offs. Four times more businesses could not ensure income support for their workers-I remind you that these workers are 55 years of age and more who have given 20, 25, 30 years of their lives to the labour force, the labour market, and their community-because of a stupid criterion which is not adapted to the situation in Montreal.

The same is true for the business sector. As you know, one of the realities of our modern economies is that the tertiary sector is becoming the main production sector and, in Montreal, according to the figures available for 1993-94, 41 commercial

businesses were declared eligible under POWA while 139 did not qualify.

So, three times more companies and three times more workers were excluded than included. That is nonsense and, out of consideration for the workers, the situation must be corrected. I repeat, because it cannot be overemphasized, all concerned agree. It is wrong for a worker in a desperate situation, which often may have drastic consequences over which he has no control, like a massive lay-off, to have to go through an eligibility determination process. His eligibility should not be based on the size of the municipality in which he lives.

The case of Steinberg shows how absurd these criteria are. We are all familiar with this case and we remember that workers in 13 of the 28 stores that should have qualified under POWA were in fact excluded. In the case of Steinberg, there is another factor that should be mentioned, namely that we were in a situation where there were two categories of employers.

Despite the fact that Steinberg was a chain that had various stores across Quebec, you will see, Madam Speaker, how absurd the situation was regarding the eligibility under POWA and you will feel sad about it. It is a situation that has to change. So, according to the criteria used, it was possible for a person who worked in a Steinberg store in Ville d'Anjou to qualify under POWA, whereas another Steinberg employee who worked in a Montreal store could be excluded.

You did not misunderstand, Madam Speaker. It was the same corporate organization, with the same employer, the same technologies, the same collective agreement, and the same supervision system, and we ended up with a totally unacceptable situation where workers were divided into two groups, with some people being excluded and others included. That is unacceptable from the point of view of social rights.

Why? Because, once more, eligibility depends on the size of the municipality where the production unit is located. Let us take the Steinberg situation. In the case of laid-off workers in Saint-Jérôme, there had to be 40 workers eligible to POWA if individual workers were to be compensated.

And for the same company, the same production unit, the same technology, and the same producer, if you were working for Steinberg in Longueuil, but still for the same company, the number of laid-off workers was 80 to become eligible.

[International Civil Aviation Organization, June 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the House's attention the 50th anniversary of the founding of the International Civil Aviation Organization, the only United Nations agency to be headquartered in Montreal since its founding in 1944. The ICAO has now become an important component of the worldwide transportation industry.

In 1944, a total of 52 countries signed the convention on international civil aviation. The signing came at a time when 9 million people used airplanes as a mode of transportation. Today, airplanes carry nearly 1.2 billion passengers and are recognized as the safest means of transportation. We have the ICAO to thank in large part for this record because it had the foresight to invite member states to adopt efficient air safety measures.

The success of the ICAO clearly shows what the peoples of the world can accomplish when they work together. Many challenges await the ICAO in the next 50 years, and we wish this organization the best of luck.

[Eh-101 Helicopter Contract, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, only with your indulgence could the minister not answer my question. Perhaps he will redeem himself by answering my supplementary question.

How can the Minister of Industry justify awarding compensation only to prime contractors, for the most part foreign companies, when right here in Canada and in Quebec, many sub-contractors do not have sufficient funds to convert to civilian production? How does he explain this?

[Eh-101 Helicopter Contract, May 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the Minister of Industry stated that only the prime contractors associated with the EH-101 helicopter contract would be compensated. As everyone knows, the government has yet to provide any compensation.

Does the Minister of Industry realize that, aside from the prime contractors involved, several other companies had made commitments under this contract and that they, along with the prime contractors, have yet to be compensated for the cancellation of this deal? Is the minister aware of this situation?

[Defence Industry Conversion, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, delighted really, to see that the hon. minister reads other material besides Shakespeare.

Considering that Bell Helicopter admitted to delaying a $40 million investment because the existing DIPP did not meet its needs, how can the minister continue to maintain that the program is adequate for companies seeking to move away from defence production? This is a concrete example of conversion. How can the minister help this company?

[Defence Industry Conversion, May 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a study commissioned by the federal government concluded that over 10,000 defence industry jobs had been lost in Quebec since 1987. It also indicated that unless action is taken, 10,000 more jobs are in danger of disappearing within five years.

Given this alarming context, how can the Minister of Industry refuse to implement an emergency plan to put defence industries to alternate, civilian uses, thereby preserving thousands of jobs in Quebec?

[Conversion Of Defence Industries, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister not recognize that the decision not to proceed with a conversion strategy for defence industries will, in effect, threaten and jeopardize the activities in this important industrial sector which has already lost 10,000 jobs in Quebec since 1988? Will the Prime Minister tell the Minister of Industry to review his policy while it is still possible?

[Conversion Of Defence Industries, May 9th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, the daily Le Devoir was reporting that Bell Helicopter had decided not to go ahead with its $40 million investment plan to develop a new helicopter. You probably realize that this decision follows the about-turn of the federal government which now reneges on its commitment to set up a conversion program for defence industries.

Does the Prime Minister realize that the cancellation of this expansion program at Bell Helicopter, which would have created 100 new jobs, is the direct result of the decision of his government not to participate in conversion activities through DIPP? Is the Prime Minister aware of the catastrophic consequences of that decision?

[Party Fundraising, May 6th, 1994]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for my lack of experience, but could you explain to us the implication of this amendment on the unfolding of the debate? I would also like to know whether the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Richelieu, has been informed of the intent of our hon. colleague.