Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, April 12th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank my Bloc Quebecois colleague.

The hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques is a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. He succeeded in having the committee approve the proposal that we will review over the coming weeks regarding this very sensitive issue, and I thank him for that.

In the riding of Jonquière, between 200 and 300 workers will lose their jobs in the weeks to come. It is all fine and well to tell a worker between 50 and 55 years of age that he or she will get training, that he or she will be sent back to school, but these people need other things.

I thank the Bloc Quebecois for having given me responsibility for this issue. I am asking all those interested in testifying before the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development to contact us. We will be very pleased to hear all their suggestions.

It is not true that this issue is really a priority for the government. The government is not providing proactive measures for this group of citizens. We will not let it get away with this. We will, along with all Canadians and Quebeckers, propose concrete measures.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1999, April 12th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-71, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget, and to say from the outset that I will vote against this legislation.

My speech will deal with four specific points, which I will develop.

This sixth Martin budget, the first so-called deficit free Liberal budget, is a crying shame.

First, it formalizes the misappropriation of funds by the federal government, at the expense of thousands of Canadian workers who cannot get employment insurance benefits.

Second, this budget does not reflect any will to help older workers who lose their jobs following plant closures.

Third, as regards the environment, where are the necessary moneys to fulfil the commitments made in Kyoto?

Fourth, this budget gives legal status to the federal government's will to encroach freely on provincial jurisdictions, by getting fully involved in areas of jurisdiction in which it has simply no business.

However, no matter how shocking and outrageous the Liberal government's attitude may be, it does not surprise anyone. About this time last year, when it tabled its previous budget, this government showed its true colours.

We then saw a Prime Minister of Canada who wanted to go down in history by creating a monument to his own glory. I am referring to the millennium scholarships.

Members opposite are getting all worked up. If the government really wants to help young people, why does it not transfer the moneys to the provinces, which are responsible for the loans and scholarships programs?

Quebec has the best loans and scholarships system. Our program adequately meets the needs of young people. Why not recognize excellence and give to the Quebec government additional funding to ensure a sound management of that initiative, instead of duplicating an efficient system?

That was a year ago. Now, the Minister of Finance, our master magician, our sleight of hand specialist, is getting into the act and unveiling his own monument. He did not want to be outdone. For weeks, he laid the groundwork. Day after day, he told us to wait for the budget.

Now we are considering the budget and what do we see? We see a Minister of Finance completely lacking in long term vision, a Minister of Finance whose concerns are all short term and motivated by political gain. What a bitter disappointment this is for all these workers and middle income earners.

In his new budget, the Minister of Finance is determined to conceal his surpluses rather than turn them over to unemployed workers and middle income earners.

Having contributed to the acknowledged $4.5 billion surplus in the EI fund, six out of ten Quebeckers and Canadians who lose their jobs will still not qualify for benefits. Many of my colleagues have spoken at length in the House about the unfortunate and very harmful impact of EI reform on women, pregnant women and young people. What the minister is doing is no small matter. Workers and employers contribute to this fund. The federal government has not put in one red cent in over ten years.

In this budget, where are the proactive measures, particularly those for older workers over the age of 50? Thousands of people in the various regions of the country will be affected by plant closures or massive layoffs. Where are the concrete measures in this budget to help them?

This government has abolished the program especially designed for them, POWA. Did these workers not contribute to the employment insurance fund for years? Many of them have never drawn benefits. This is an essential measure for them. The billions of surplus dollars that have accumulated must be used for this purpose, among other things.

Why has this minister not been listening to the thousands of workers by introducing such an active and positive measure in this budget? Perhaps the answer is obvious.

Where are the concrete messages to the middle-class taxpayer? Are these not the people who have made it possible for the Minister of Finance to do away with his deficit? Why has he not used part of his hidden surpluses to adjust the tax tables to the cost of living, thus putting $2 billion back into the economy?

To give an example from my riding, one of my constituents wrote me on January 22 to express his outrage at the unjust treatment of couples with a family income of $50,000 a year, when the wife does not work outside the home. Such a couple pays $4,000 more taxes yearly than a couple with both spouses working. He describes this as “unfair”, and is waiting for a response and a correction of the situation.

As my party's critic on the environment, I was greatly disappointed that the budget did not show any willingness, on the part of the government, to act in this area. Yet there is extreme urgency. This government is already behind on the formal commitments it made at Kyoto on eliminating greenhouse gases. And what about the elimination of 5,000 contaminated sites? Where is the money to get started on decontamination?

What about highway rehabilitation? Where is the funding for this? When is there going to be any follow-up on the $16 billion proposal made last spring by all provincial ministers of transport to the Government of Canada, with the agreement of their ministers of finance?

Once again, I see that this is just a lot of fancy talk by the Liberals, with no willingness to do anything.

A few days ago, on March 29, the Minister of Transport told us he was trying to convince his cabinet colleagues to give him $3.5 billion for this, whereas the provincial ministers of transport are talking about $16 billion. It is always tomorrow, tomorrow, later, later. We see no willingness to act in this budget.

Where is the money for this year? When are they going to bring back programs such as the strategic highway improvement program, which all the provincial ministers of transports are calling for?

Quebeckers, particularly the people of the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, are not fooled by the fancy words repeated by petty politicians. The Conservatives did the same when they were in government between 1984 and 1992. They did nothing to improve roads, especially highway 175.

We in the Bloc Quebecois are here to tell them the real truth, to defend them against these petty politicians, because Ottawa is not so far removed and we are well informed.

Another matter dear to my heart is regional development. From every podium, we hear this government saying that its first priority is regional development. Is there a bit of “Do as I say not as I do” here? I think this can be said of the Liberals. If there is one thing I am sure of, it is that in this budget, in black and white, spending on regional development was cut by $100 million cut this year and $200 million next year. Find the discrepancies between the words and the figures.

Our national Minister of Finance also treated himself to a monument in this budget, the find of the century, the health care budget.

Canadians are not fooled. They know very well that the Liberal government is responsible for the deterioration in this country's health care system. They know the real story, not what the government would have them believe.

Since 1994, the government has slashed provincial transfer payments for health, education and social assistance by over $6.5 billion. The Liberal government is to blame for the terrible repercussions on the entire health system from coast to coast.

Underlying the Minister of Finance's new health budget is a dark history of billions of dollars in cuts that have hit the public very hard, and we must never forget it.

With the support of his colleague, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Finance is now charging into the health sector, a provincial jurisdiction, and imposing his views, new structures, statistics, monitoring, and additional paperwork. The final cost will be $1.4 billion over three years. This money will not benefit the sick; no, this government prefers to spend $400 million on administration alone just for the visibility.

What is the word for this? Irresponsible. But I say to the Minister of Finance that it is not too late. The minister should show some compassion and hand over these millions of dollars to the provinces with no strings attached so that the public can finally get the care to which it is entitled.

In conclusion, for all these reasons, and for all the other reasons my Bloc Quebecois colleagues have mentioned in their speeches, I will be voting against Bill C-71.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Please, calm down. We have the whole night to talk. So, cool it. Your turn will come.

Mr. Speaker, let me recapitulate.

Negotiations with the officials representing the 4,500 correctional officers at table 4 led to a majority conciliation report—and I emphasize the words “majority conciliation”—that was unanimously approved by union members. Unfortunately, the employer, which happens to be this government, tabled a minority report. I wonder why. Why did it not take into account the majority report tabled by a third party? This is one reason why I do not think the government is very honest in its approach.

Negotiations at table 2, which involved workers from groups such as general labour and trades, ships' crews, hospital services, general services and firefighters did not lead to a majority conciliation report, because the chair of the conciliation board, the employer and the union tabled three different offers. The gap between the offers from the employer and the union is not insurmountable, provided the government acts in good faith.

Here is what is included in the bill. The government's offer for table 2 is lower than its previous proposal. The cat is out of the bag. The government is using its power to introduce a special bill to lower its offers. Before tabling its bill, the federal government was offering 2.75%, compared to 2.50% now.

The government is obviously trying to take advantage of the introduction of this bill to get the upper hand in a situation where it is both judge and judged.

Have table 2 workers not had their salaries frozen for 6 years? I would like go over what has been happening to employees in various sectors for the last six years. I will take the case of construction workers in my riding of Jonquière.

Carpenters in Quebec's federally regulated sector earn $14.75 an hour. That is because their salaries have been frozen. In Jonquière, carpenters earn $21.46 an hour, and the Office de la construction du Quebec pays $24.94 an hour.

A federal government mechanic is paid $14.05 an hour. In Jonquière, a class B mechanic earns $20.92 an hour and an FTQ mechanic in construction is paid $24.49. Clearly, this wage freeze put in place six years ago has dealt a serious blow to the purchasing power of these workers. And this is not the offer being made by this government, which it has reduced since introducing the bill. Something must be done to eliminate the ever-widening gap vis-à-vis comparable sectors in the private sector.

Apart from the pay issue, there are regional rates of pay. This is ridiculous. Do people realize that the rates of pay of federal workers in Quebec, Newfoundland and British Columbia are not the same? How can this be? They are doing the same work but have three different salary scales.

The government's offer to table 4 was known. There was a majority conciliation report. Why did the government choose to ignore it? The bill will allow the government to impose its conditions and to pay no heed to this majority report which, I repeat, was produced by a third party, and unanimously endorsed by the union.

Through this back to work legislation the government is trying to impose a collective agreement on workers at table 2 and 4 claiming it is standing for taxpayers' interest. I doubt this very much. This could not be further from the truth. What the government really wants to do is set the public against the rights of the workers. In fact, if the government was really interested, picket lines could come down today. All it would have to do would be accept the majority conciliation report concerning table 2, and binding arbitration for table 4.

In general, we oppose back to work legislation. Why? Because it should only be a last recourse. Have all the other options been exhausted? We believe they have not. Striking is a worker's fundamental right and back to work legislation would abolish this right. The government should accept going to arbitration. The blue collar workers would then put an end to their pressure tactics.

Since 1991, the federal government has renewed the framework agreement in the civil service through legislation passed by this Parliament. Today, as the framework agreement has been divided into seven bargaining tables, it is essential for the government to reach a settlement negotiated in good faith.

If the strike by blue collar workers is harming the interests of other Canadians, it must be understood that exercising one's right to strike always has direct or indirect repercussions on society. If we were to prohibit any strike that harmed other people, the right to strike would no longer exist.

I come from a unionist background. The riding of Jonquière is a workers' riding. For the last 50 years, these people have worked hard in their negotiations with their employers to achieve collective agreements in which they made sure their bargaining power and the balance of power between them and their employers was respected. I do not think this government has any respect for that.

Let us review briefly what happened in the past. I am astonished. The federal government has constantly used its legislative power to pass special legislation. I will give a list of some of these measures.

In 1982, it passed Bill C-124 to freeze the salaries of some 500,000 workers. In December 1989, we had back to work legislation, Bill C-49. In October 1991, it passed Bill C-29 which said that the employer's offers would be imposed unilaterally if they were not accepted. The Canada Labour Relations Board said this measure was unfair.

In April 1992, we had Bill C-113 which imposed a two year freeze and a unilateral extension of the collective agreement. Even the International Labour Organization chastised the government for its lack of support for union rights.

In June 1993, another bill was brought in, Bill C-101, which gave the government the right to impose a vote on its final offer in any negotiation. In June 1994, the current government introduced yet another, Bill C-17, which imposed two more years of wage freezes and added two years extension to the collective agreement, for a total of six consecutive years of wage freeze. Once again, the International Labour Organization denounced this process.

The year 1996 brought Bill C-31, with which the federal government moved into contracting out. In 1992, the federal government closed the Pay Research Bureau, thus avoiding being forced to deal with contradictory facts and figures. Bill C-26, on public service reform, in 1993, gave the employer a major advantage, making it once again both judge and party in workplace related matters.

As the member for Jonquière and as a member of this House of Commons, I am opposed, as are all members of the Bloc Quebecois, to this bill which tramples on the fundamental rights of workers.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize your great wisdom.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, when my dear colleague opposite speaks, I will listen. So I ask you to tell him to allow me to speak.

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill C-76, an act to provide for the resumption and continuation of government services, is to get the public service workers who are currently on strike back to work.

The bill also gives wide latitude to the government in imposing the working conditions and salaries it wants, including those for the 4,500 correctional officers who have a strike mandate.

With this bill, with its pernicious effects on correctional officers, according to its press release of March 22, the government wants to “ensure the safety of the Canadian public”. This is a totally fallacious argument.

This government knows very well that, if it wanted to ensure public safety, it had only to bow to the majority conciliation report, which was unanimously accepted by the unions representing the correctional officers. From that point on, the threat of a correctional officer strike would have been avoided, without any need of unjustified special legislation.

The federal government justifies these drastic measures in the form of Bill C-76 with the pretext that the prairie farmers are losing income and people's income tax returns are not being processed because of the picketing. In my riding of Jonquière. we have a taxation data centre. I think the workers who demonstrated had the right to do so, and the Revenue Canada workers at the Jonquière centre respected their right.

I cannot say the same for the government. I thought that in Canada people still had the right to unionize and that workers, when they had good reason to do so, could strike, because they had followed the entire process that could lead them to a strike mandate.

Today, I am not so sure. The government's approach right now, introducing special legislation, makes me think there are things to hide. It is part of a fair balance of power.

[The Environment, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, before announcing to the whole world that Canada is prepared to become the nuclear waste dump for the entire planet, can the Prime Minister commit to a full debate on this matter here in the House, given the major impact such a decision could have on future generations?

[The Environment, March 23rd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, we have learned that the Prime Minister wrote to President Clinton on March 3 indicating Canada's interest in receiving Russian or American nuclear arms waste, provided that the project is hazard-free and viable.

How could the Prime Minister have taken this initiative of contacting President Clinton when the foreign affairs committee had examined the issue and requested that the government reject this project?

[National Housing Act, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, on February 5, I put a question to the Minister of Human Resources Development regarding the Program for Older Workers Adjustment or POWA.

The answer the minister gave me was not satisfactory. I had reminded him that on the program Zone Libre , where he had appeared, he had finally admitted that the active measures he is now offering older workers who have been laid off, such as those of the BC mine, are not the answer to the special problems of this category of worker.

I asked him:

Are we to understand that the minister is going to quickly throw together a new and improved version of POWA, a program that he himself cut?

The minister answered in general terms, too general, saying he was very pleased with the creation of 87,000 new jobs across Canada, half of them for young people.

I believe my question was very clear. It dealt specifically with the drastic situation of older workers. Their problem is that it is not easy for them to have access to the new jobs.

The work place is changing quickly. It is undergoing a mutation and requires new knowledge and skills. It is not surprising that young people eventually find a place in the labour market. We are very happy about it, but it does not solve the problems of older workers.

The minister keeps on saying that the best way to fight poverty and alienation is to create jobs, but he must understand that it is not the only way. It does not extinguish the government's responsibility to help people in dire straits.

On its own, the labour market cannot remedy inequalities and injustices. The minister himself admits this in his book. The state must correct the inequities in the labour market.

We must see reality as it is: older workers have real problems getting back into the workforce. Employers hesitate to hire them because of their age. To get any retraining is a lengthy process. The doors to the workforce are not exactly wide open to them. The minister is closing his eyes to the reality of older workers, and taking refuge behind overall market statistics.

The immediate need of older workers is financial assistance to help them survive, to meet their obligations, and to negotiate the long and difficult process of career training. These workers have paid into the employment insurance system for years without ever using it, and now they are more than deserving of our consideration and support.

When I watched Zone libre , I was hoping the minister was finally aware of the plight of older workers. Was I wrong?

Instead of shedding false tears over those who have been excluded, when will the minister take action and introduce an improved version of POWA to do something about the poverty and exclusion of older workers who have lost their jobs?

[Urban Smog, March 11th, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, a recent study shows that the level at which health problems related to smog start occurring is five times lower than the authorized federal standards.

It is the first time that a study establishes a direct link between mortality rates and urban smog.

Given the study's findings, what does the Minister of the Environment intend to do to correct this dangerous situation as quickly as possible?