Rose-Marie Ur

[Agriculture, March 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Middlesex Federation of Agriculture is one of the leading farm organizations in southwestern Ontario. This weekend, in what has become an annual event, Middlesex farmers will meet with my colleagues from Perth-Middlesex, Elgin-Middlesex-London and myself as well as the area provincial member. The variety of issues for discussion will range from international trade and farm finance to research investment and rural development.

Ontario's agriculture industry is world class in management technology and production, with more than $6.5 billion in farm gate receipts in 1996. It is contributing nearly $22.2 billion to the provincial GDP, employing 672,000 people.

Sound government policy is required to encourage the growth and stability of agriculture. I look forward to working with the Middlesex federation to ensure that agriculture is at the top of the government's agenda.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I am pleased to say that I am on the same planet he is in this wonderfully great country called Canada.

I appreciate his question. I have not received any negative comments from any women's groups or old age pensioners. The old age pensioners in the riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex are fully aware of the fact that the minister is reviewing the old age pension, the GIS and so on. There has not been any indication in this budget regarding that.

On health care, which is brought up continuously in this House, the federal government's cutting transfer payments to the provinces, I will relate specifically to my province of Ontario. When Mr. Harris ran in the last election he promised a $4.5 billion tax cut. Unfortunately the federal government has allocated dollars now and the provinces choose to divide it up. Wherever provinces decide to divide it, it is up to each province to decide whether to put it in health care or social programs. Unfortunately it is reaping a negative impact in Ontario under the circumstances with the massive tax cuts the premier wishes to do.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London for the question. I can certainly attest as to the calls that have been coming into my riding office. With the budgets that this government has produced over the last four plus years we have never really had many negative calls.

They were always positive, that the finance minister was certainly addressing the deficit. Many of the calls I received complimented the minister for exceeding his targets, which has not happened in several years.

The positive element within my community is the same for this budget as it has been in previous budgets the minister has delivered.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London.

I am proud to speak in full and complete support of the government's budgetary measures. On behalf of my constituents I am also pleased to express their points of view on the budget. I have heard from many local residents in the month since the budget was first delivered on February 24 by the hon. Minister of Finance.

To me, families in rural Canada are the biggest winners in this budget, with $7 billion in tax cuts, $13 billion in debt reduction already this year and appropriate investments in health care and education. These are some of the items that my constituents have mentioned to me. I believe we are on the right track and must continue this course.

This budget is a balance between new spending and tax or debt reduction. The Minister of Finance has clearly accomplished that. For example, the elimination of the 3% income surtax for people earning under $50,000 and increasing the basic personal exemption are two measures that will reduce taxes for 90% of Canadians, especially low and middle income earners who form the vast majority of constituents in my riding of Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

My riding is an assortment of small towns, villages and hamlets, with the two largest centres having populations of approximately 12,000. I was delighted to declare that rural and small town families are getting relief.

With the first balanced budget in 28 years and two more predicted to the year 2000, the Liberal government has targeted its efforts on the economic and social priorities that are important in my riding. These are items such as support for families with children, support for looking after ailing family members, increased access to knowledge and skills with more money for rural Internet access, help for small business owners to hire young people, and to enable them to deduct their own dental and health insurance.

As the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have stated, Canada has cut up its credit card. The era of overspending is behind us forever. I know that my constituents are breathing a sigh of relief. They want their hard-earned tax dollars to be spent wisely and prudently. People should expect nothing less from their government. We are delivering and will continue to do so.

As well, our goal is to put the horrendous national debt on a permanent downward track. Last year it dropped for the first time in a generation with more reductions to come to preserve our financial future as a country.

More help for families came in the form of an enriched child tax benefit. The 1997 budget allocated $850 million to the benefit. This year we will increase that by another $850 million over the next few years.

To help working Canadians with children, we will increase the child care deduction limit from $5,000 to $7,000 for children under the age of seven, and from $3,000 to $4,000 for children between the ages of seven and sixteen. This will assist about 65,000 Canadian families with children. It is yet another piece of good news from the budget.

Small business is the backbone of my riding. Entrepreneurs, service providers, corner stores, farm implements dealers and the farmers are all involved in our communities and make a positive economic impact.

If a small business hires someone between the ages of 18 and 24 in 1999 or 2000, their employment insurance premiums will be reduced to zero for those new hires. This will reduce payroll costs for the employers by $100 million a year. This is on top of the EI rate reductions announced in January. Both these actions could reduce payroll costs by $1.4 billion.

To improve equity in the tax treatment of self-employed Canadians, all owner operators of businesses will be able to deduct premiums for health and dental insurance against their business incomes. This is certainly an excellent step forward. In addition, the federal government will benefit the nearly 500 volunteer firefighters in Lambton county and the many more in Kent and Middlesex which are in my riding.

The tax free allowance has been doubled from $500 to $1,000. Mr. Don Crocker, Moore township's fire chief and Lambton county's fire co-ordinator, says: “It is a big deal for them, a big impact for the volunteers, manning the county's 20 primary rural Lambton stations. It is a big plus for volunteers. They are spending an awful lot of time and getting very little for it. I think it is wonderful”.

There are nearly 22,000 volunteer firefighters in the province of Ontario, so we can plainly see this budget is positive for rural Canada.

Camalachie fire chief Gerry Dochstader can attest to the low wages paid to volunteers. Some are paid on a points system, others get compensation from their municipality. The extra tax deduction will help, he says, in a February 26 article in the Sarnia Observer : “It is like compensation for the wear and tear of your car, tearing down to the fire station at 3 o'clock in the morning, whipping out on Sunday calls while still in your good clothes. For what we ask the rural firefighters they are given very, very little in return”.

The tax allowance covers the cost of clothes damaged in fires, special equipment, steel toed boots and other expenses they incur as volunteer emergency workers.

Many of Canada's important industries such as agriculture are based in rural communities. These primary industries account for almost half of Canada's exports. My riding includes some of the best dairy farmers in Ontario. Kent County is the number one corn growing region in the country and Middlesex is home to chicken, egg, beef and pork producers. Agriculture is the lifeblood of my riding and of southwestern Ontario.

The 1998 budget confirms the four year $20 million Canadian rural partnership initiative. This will support innovative programs to help rural Canadians find community solutions to challenges such as maintaining good soil and water and charting a successful course in a rapidly changing economy.

In addition, $30 million over three years has been provided to an expanded community access program. This excellent program will provide an Internet connection for virtually every community with 400 or more residents by the end of the year 2000.

I was pleased to recently announce on behalf of the Minister of Industry up to $15,000 in Internet funding for several libraries in my riding. I am confident that all of them will be hooked up to the information highway very soon.

Children and adults alike are using the services provided and I have heard nothing but great reviews.

Rural communities will also benefit from the $50 million capital injection in the Farm Credit Corporation announced in the 1997 budget. These additional funds will be used to encourage economic growth and diversification.

With fiscal discipline, targeted tax reductions and strategic investments, the 1998 budget is working for rural Canadians and all Canadians.

The budget marks a significant accomplishment for Canada. Tough fiscal control has gotten us this far, and we are not about to let up. Spending must continue to be constrained and federal spending has dropped to its lowest level in 50 years relative to the GDP. For the first time in half a century the Minister of Finance will be produce three consecutive balanced budgets, a remarkable symbol of financial stability on the world markets.

I am proud to be a part of the building of Canada and Lambton—Kent—Middlesex for the 21st century. We will lead all industrialized nations in economic growth this year and next. We can finally look forward to the future with renewed hope and optimism.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1998, March 24th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, when my hon. colleague first began his speech he quoted Catherine Swift, president of CFIB, and made a statement regarding her reaction to the budget.

I would like to quote from Catherine Swift as reported on February 25 in the Ottawa Citizen :

The biggest thing in there for small business was income tax reduction. Putting more money into people's hands is good for the economy. From a political standpoint it was a good budget. There was a little something for everyone and a huge amount of wiggle room which would allow the debt to be paid down faster.

Regarding his quotation of Catherine Swift and whether she had more time to digest the good budget the hon. minister brought down, how could he say that it was negative? The day after the budget she indicated that she was quite in favour of it.

[Agriculture, March 11th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Agriculture and Agri-Food.

As a member who represents a large rural riding I am very concerned about farm safety. Between 1991 and 1995 there were 502 work related fatalities on the farm. Of those, 10% were children.

Can he tell this House what this government is doing to promote safety on our Canadian farms?

[Canada Labour Code, February 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I can see where the hon. member's concerns are coming from. Being from the government side we may differ a bit on his perception and what his concerns are. Perhaps the issues he has brought forth could be discussed further at committee. Some of these issues could be discussed and perhaps changes could be made.

The new composition of the board will probably address some of the concerns my hon. colleague has brought forth. The task of achieving this new board will protect the interests of the workers as well as those of the employers. That is an added benefit. Also, with this new composition of the Canada Labour Relations Board it will have a co-operative working relationship. Collective bargaining legislation must have fair and balanced rights and obligations for employers, employees and unions, as my hon. colleague has brought forth. I take his question with due respect.

[Canada Labour Code, February 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-19 which would amend part I of the Canada Labour Code regarding industrial relations and makes the Canada industrial relations board more effective. I have met with constituents on this bill. They have encouraged me to support C-19 and hope the House passes it forthwith.

This bill contains a number of important and timely amendments to part I of the Canada Labour Code. This part of the code applies to over 700,000 workers and their employers in the federally regulated private sector. This includes industries such as banking, interprovincial and international transportation, airports and airlines, broadcasting, telecommunications, port operations and grain handling.

Members in this House know that at a time when the global economy is becoming increasingly competitive, it is crucial that governments lead the way with forward looking legislation such as C-19 put forward by the Minister of Labour.

It is also essential that the strategically vital infrastructure industries that I have mentioned are able to operate as efficiently as possible. This means that we must invest capital in these industries. But just as important, it means that we must invest in our labour relations institutions.

Our dispute resolution process must be as modern, as effective and efficient as possible. This is precisely the objective of this legislation, to modernize part I of the Canada Labour Code and improve labour relations in the federal workplace.

As members from the previous Parliament will know, this bill is almost identical to Bill C-66 which was approved by the House last April.

It is my belief that the new C-19, as was the former bill, is a legislative initiative which achieves the exceedingly difficult task of balancing the interests of workers with the interests of employers. It accords certain rights to each party but also demands that both sides act in the interests of their own membership and in the interests of the general public.

I firmly believe that this bill is a model of how labour legislation should be developed. During each stage of the legislative process, labour and management have been at the heart of it all expressing their opinions and offering their considerable expertise.

It is useful to point out that consultations began almost three years ago when the Minister of Labour asked the task force to review part I of the Canada Labour Code and then to offer recommendations or needed changes. The task force was led by Mr. Andrew Sims, a respected and non-partisan labour relations expert. He and his colleagues criss-crossed the country meeting with labour and business representatives, labour law practitioners, academic experts and ordinary citizens concerned about what was going on in our workplaces.

In terms of identifying issues in areas in which agreement between management and labour was possible, the task force certainly benefited from the excellent contributions of a labour-management consensus group. Membership in this group included representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress, the Confederation of National Trade Unions, the Canadian Federation of Labour, the Federally Regulated Employers, Transportation and Communications, the Western Grain Elevator Association and the Canadian Bankers Association.

The Sims task force compiled the results of the consultations and resulting recommendations in its final report entitled “Seeking a Balance”. There is a significant and recurring theme in this report. It is that the Canada Labour Code is generally regarded by labour and management groups as an effective labour relations framework which has facilitated collective bargaining in the federally regulated private sector. Of course I must add that there is still room for improvement.

In the remainder of my time I would like to focus on one such area where changes are required. It is in the structure and role of the Canada Labour Relations Board.

The task force examined many aspects of the board, including its non-representational structure. Since 1973 the board has been made up entirely of public appointees. None of these members is designated as either representing labour or management. In this regard the structure of the board differs from labour boards in almost every other Canadian jurisdiction. This must change.

Fortunately the Sims task force achieved a consensus between management and labour on this very item. All sides agreed that a representative board would have at least four related benefits.

First, for those appearing before the board, they would have more confidence in the process knowing that their cases are fully understood and properly reviewed. Second, decisions made by the board would generally be more acceptable to both labour and management. Third, it would provide some assurance that when the board exercises discretion, as it often must, that it would be on the basis of practical real world industrial relations experience. Fourth, the presence of a friendly viewpoint of the board would help the parties involved in the dispute to feel more comfortable about offering and accepting compromised solutions.

This bill adopts an approach recommended by the Sims task force. The non-representational Canada Labour Relations Board will be replaced by one that does represent each side. The new more credible board will consist of a neutral chair and vice-chair and equal numbers of board members representing labour and management groups.

A second aspect examined by the task force was regional representation. It is not credible to have all members from the national capital region. Regionally based members will help to improve the visibility, accessibility and credibility of the board.

The task force examined whether the board members should be committed on a full time or part time basis. The report noted that many provincial boards have part time members which is cost effective while it enables the boards to benefit from the expertise and experience of people still active in labour relations and not stuck in Ottawa as full time bureaucrats.

However concerns were expressed about part time regional members. Some suggested that regional decisions would be made by part timers with other large demands on their schedules and would not be available for long drawn out cases.

In the Canadian way, the task force recommended a balanced blend. A core of full time adjudicators located in the national capital region will be joined by part timers located in the regions. This seems to gain the best of both worlds.

On these questions the government has listened to the respected members of the Sims task force. The bill provides for the appointment of part time and regional members. This will significantly improve the cost effectiveness of the board. It will give the board access to labour relations experts and it will improve the links between the board and the labour relations community.

The consultation that led to this bill identified the inflexibility of the Canada Labour Relations Board in responding to routine and urgent cases. One approach recommended was to move from the system of a three person panel to a one person panel. Many routine cases can be adequately conducted by a one person panel.

I stress that as a result of this legislation the major criteria for appointment as chair or vice-chair will be competence, as it should be. A clause will be inserted into the code to reiterate that these people must have experience and expertise in industrial relations.

In addition, the flexibility of the board will be enhanced by the repeal of the provision that requires the parties to obtain ministerial permission before they file an allegation of bad faith bargaining. This will be particularly significant in cases where an immediate board hearing is needed to break a deadlock.

The board's remedial powers will be expanded to ensure good faith bargaining. An amendment will confirm the ability of the board to direct one side to include or withdraw specific terms in a bargaining position in order to rectify a failure to bargain in good faith.

Time does not allow me to outline the many more improvements to the Canada Labour Relations Board contained in Bill C-19. It is fitting that the government, which has consulted broadly, is proposing a board that can take full advantage of the skills of the labour relations community. Labour relations boards are extremely important agencies. Their work affects thousands of employees and thousands of businesses.

I congratulate the minister on the work thus far and for looking forward in establishing a labour relations system that will instil confidence in Canadians.

[National Literacy Day, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today is national literacy day and we are calling for continued support and highlighting the connection between prosperity and literacy.

Almost half of Canada's adult population score at the lowest literacy level. They are unable to reach their full potential as workers, parents and citizens.

Canadians are taking steps to meet this challenge. The national literacy secretariat, other levels of government, libraries and schools are making crucial contributions. But we need to intensify our collective effort. Opportunities to advance Canadian literacy are being missed. In many communities we have willing learners who cannot find programs, or lack of funding closes excellent literacy programs.

Together we must act on the challenges and opportunities ahead for effective literacy teaching and learning.

[Canadian Wheat Board Act, February 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker and hon. members of the House of Commons, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this group of motions with respect to Bill C-4.

Even though I am not a western producer or a member of Parliament from western Canada, I am a producer from Ontario. I did have the privilege of travelling with the committee when we had hearings out west regarding the Canadian Wheat Board.

The motion in this group proposes a number of alternatives with respect to the governance of the Canadian Wheat Board. Under Bill C-4, a 15 member board of directors would be created with 10 directors elected by the producers, four directors appointed by the governor in council and the president and CEO appointed by the governor in council. The governor in council would appoint the president based on the minister's recommendation after the minister consulted with the rest of the board of directors.

The intention of this legislation is to put the decision making power into the hands of the producers and I certainly attest to that. However, the federal government does have substantial interests at stake.

It will continue to provide the Canadian Wheat Board with substantial financial guarantees. That is taxpayers' money. It will guarantee the initial payments. It will guarantee sales made under the credit grain sales program. It will continue to guarantee the Canadian Wheat Board's $5 billion to $6 billion in day to day borrowings.

The Canadian Wheat Board will also continue to perform public policy functions such as issuing export licences. For this reason the government must maintain a direct role by appointing the president as well as a minority of members of the board of directors.

Let me emphasize that the government realizes the importance of a CWB which is accountable to the producers.

Bill C-4 already specifies that the board of directors with a two-thirds majority elected by farmers would set the remuneration of the president. The legislation also makes it clear that the minister cannot appoint a president without first consulting with the board. The board will be able to review the president's performance and recommend his or her dismissal if board members feel that performance is inadequate.

Bill C-4 reserves the final decision concerning dismissal of the president for the governor in council. However it is clear that the board of directors would have several means for making its displeasure known and it is difficult to see how a president could continue in office without the support of the board.

In short, the government's power to appoint and dismiss does not take away the board's influence over the CEO.

There is another reason for having the government make some appointments to the board. It is in keeping with good corporate practice that some outside directors should have corporate experience in areas such as management, finance and marketing. This can be accomplished by having the governor in council appoint a minority of the directors. It is important to realize that all directors whether elected or appointed have equal status and the same responsibilities and duties.

One can understand the desire to have candidate expenditure limits on elections for the board of directors and to set out more specifics in regard to the voting rules. However these are items which would more properly be handled through the regulations, not legislation. Enshrining these points in legislation would mean that the issue would come back to Parliament each time a modification was required, such as increasing candidate expenditure limits. Regulations can be updated and changed to meet current circumstances with much greater ease.

At this time I would like to bring to the attention of the House a few questions which have been brought constantly to the attention of the committee, whether when the committee was sitting in Ottawa or whether when the committee was travelling out west.

One of the questions that was most frequently asked was: Will the Canadian Wheat Board become more accountable to farmers? The answer is yes. For the first time in history the Canadian Wheat Board will be run by a board of directors. There will be 15 directors in total.

The farmers will take control over their marketing agency by directly electing 10 of their directors, a two-thirds majority. The elected directors will reflect the views of farmers and Canadian Wheat Board decision making will be where it should be. They will be expected to demonstrate accountability to producers. Ultimately if the producers are not satisfied with what the Canadian Wheat Board is doing, they can change the directors in subsequent elections.

Another question which was frequently posed was: Will the directors have complete access to all Canadian Wheat Board information? Here again the answer is yes. All directors will be entitled to complete disclosure of all Canadian Wheat Board facts and figures, including but not limited to fully audited financial statements. They will be able to examine the prices at which grain is sold, the price premiums achieved, all operating costs and whether the Canadian Wheat Board is running efficiently.

With their full knowledge of the Canadian Wheat Board and its global competition, the directors would be in the best position to assess information that should be made public or that for commercial reasons should remain confidential.

Bill C-4 would empower farmers with more say in future decisions over their marketing system and provide a mechanism through which producers can implement many different marketing innovations. That is important to note. I repeat that it would empower farmers with more say in future decisions over their marketing system and provide the farmers, not bureaucrats, with a mechanism through which producers can implement many different marketing innovations.

Unfortunately, the amendments in this group will not contribute to this objective and therefore cannot receive the government's support.